29, 1979 environmental protection discharge of publicly ...€¦ · which bct may not be...

50732 " Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 [ Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 405, 406, 407, 408, 409,411, 412, 418, 422, 424, 426, 427,432

[FRL 1305-1]

Best Conventional Pollutant ControlTechnology; Reasonableness ofExisting Effluent Limitation Guidelines.

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: EPA publishes the results ofits review of effluent limitations onconventional pollutants in certain -industries. In some industries, effluentlimitations representing "bestconventional pollutant controltechnology" (BCT) are promulgated.These limitations will replacelimitations representing "best availabletechnology economically achievable"(BAT) previously established forconventional pollutants. In-otherindustries, BAT limitations onconventional pollutants are withdrawn,and BCT limitations will be promulgatedat a later date.

EPA initially proposed BCTlimitations on August 23, 1978. At thattime, the public was invited to commenton the proposed regulations, and apublic meeting was held. The commentsreceived from the public have all beenreviewed and evaluated by EPA. Theyhave been incorporated into this finalrulemaking package.DATE: The effective date of theseregulations will be September 28, 1979.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Ms. Emily Hartnell, Office of Analysisand Evaluation (WH-586), EPA, 401 MStreet S.W., Washington D.C. 20460,202-755-2484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

Legal Basis.On August 23,1978, EPA published

proposed "best conventional pollutantcontrol technology" (BCT) for selectedindustries. The proposed regulationswere developed in response to Section304(b)(4)(B) of the 1977 Amendments tothe Clean Water Act (CWA). Section304(b)(4)(B) instructs EPA to determineBCT through an analysis of:

The reasonableness of the relationshipbetween the costs of attaining a reduction ineffluents and the effluent reduction benefitsderived, and the comparison of the cost andlevel of reduction of such pollutants from the

discharge of publicly owned treatment worksto the cost and level of reduction of suchpqllutants from a class or category ofindustrial sources.

The Act also specifies that additionalconsideration be given in making BCTdpterminations to the age of equipment,production process, energyrequirements, and other appropriatefactors,

BCT is not an additional effluentlimitation for industrial dischargers, butrather it replaces "best availabletechnology economically achievable"(BAT) for the control of conventionalpollutants. BAT will remain in force forall non-conventional and toxicpollutants. Effluent limitationsrepresenting BCT may not be morestringent than BAT. However, BCT, likeBAT, is subject to periodic review, andprogress in waste treatment technologymay warrant subsequent revision. In nocase will BCT limitations be lessstringent than limitations representing"best practicable technology currentlyavailable" (BPT).

Section 73 of the CWA of 1977 directsthe Agency to review, immediately, allexisting final or interim final BATeffluent guidelines for conventionalpollutants in those industries notcovered in the Settlement Agreementreached in NRDC v. Train, 8 ERC 2120(D.D.C. 1976). These industries are oftenreferred to as "secondary industries."This review was to be completed within90 days of enactment of the Act.

C2. Industries Covered by This Review

As directed by Congress, EPA hasevaluated all BAT regulations forconventional pollutants which apply toindustries not covered by the NRDCSettlement Agreement (those not listedin Table 2 of Committee Print No. 95-30of the Committee on Public Works andTransportation of the House ofRepresentatives). Thirteen secondaryindirstry categories have final or interimfinal BAT effluent guidelines. These arelisted in Tables I and 2. Completeanalysis has not been carried out on all.of the subcategories in these industries.In those cases where conventionalpollutant BAT limitations are equivalentto BPT, no further analysis is necessary.Since BPT constitutes a floor belowwhich BCT may not be established, allBAT limitations set at that point arereasonable, and are being promulgatedas BCT. The 20 subcategories which fallinto this group are listed in Table 1.

The 93 subcategories in Table 2 werestudied further. Of the 93 subcategories,

-BAT regulations for 45 are not finallypromulgated or are withdrawn for avariety of other reasons. BCT limitatiofiswill be set at a later date, and BPT alone

will remain in effect. In some instances,industry studies currently underway areexpected to result shortly in thenecessary data to establish newstandards (the seafoods industry, thecane sugar subcategories of the sugarprocessing industry, and threesubcategories in the fruit and vegetableprocessing industry). In other instances,data submitted by industry warrantsfurther consideration (four subcategoriesin the meat processing industry, the beetsugar subcategory of the sugarprocessing industry, the frozen potatosubcategory, and parts of the condensedmilk and condensed whey subcategory).Adequate information is not currentlyavailable on industry operations toconiduct the necessary analysis for duckfeedlots. In a final case, somelimitations in certain meat productssubcategories have been remanded by acourt for reconsideration, and BPT willbe set at the conclusion of that process.

EPA expects to use the methodologyemployed in this BCT review when ananalysis of conventional pollutanttreatment requirements is conducted forthe primary industries (those industriesto be covered by the ConsentAgreement). National BCT limitationswill be proposed and promulgated alongwith BAT, pretreatment, and new sourcestandards, The explicit application ofthe BCT methodology to each industrywill be detailed at the time eachregulation is proposed.

3. Pollutants Covered by the ReviewSection 304(a)(4) of the Act specifies

that conventional pollutants shouldinclude, but not be limited to,biochemical oxygen demandingpollutants (BOD5), total suspendedsolids (TSS), fecal coliform, and pH, TheAgency, in a separate action, hasdesignated oil and grease as aconventional ijollutant (44 FR 44501, July30,1979) and this ieview of BAT effluentguidelines includes oil and grease in theanalysis of reasonableness whereappropriate. In the case of both fecalcoliform and pH, the BAT regulationsunder review were in alt.casesequivalent to BPT regulations.Therefore, no further analysis has beenperformed on these pollutants, and BCTcontrols of pH and fecal coliform will bethe same as BPT. Consequently, thepollutants considered in this review areBED5, TSS, and oil and grease. If, at anytime, pollutants are added or deletedfrom the conventional pollutant list, theAgency will reevaluate all effluentguidelines affected by such revisions,

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 1 Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 50733

4. Methodology for DeterminingReasonableness of BAT Regulations

(a) Background. The objective of thisreview is to evaluate existing BATlimitations for the "secondary"industries to determine if they satisfythe criteria for BCT contained in section304(b)(4)(B). That section, whichrequires a consideration of the "costreasonableness" of effluent limitationsfor conventional pollutants, hasnecessitated the development of awholly new methodology for evaluatingexisting effluent limitations and fordeveloping subsequent BCT limitations.

In developing the methodology for thisregulation, EPA was guided both by thestatutory language of section304(b)(4l03) and by Congress' underlyingobjectives in establishing BCT. Thelegislative history makes it clear thatCongress was concerned thatrequirements for the control ofconventional pollutants beyond BPTmay, in some cases, be unreasonablyexpensive. Congress recognized that atsome point costs for such control beginto exceed associated "effluent reductionbenefits", and thus established BCT to'ensure that any limitations controllingconventional pollutants at a level more"stringent than BPT were "reasonable".

This regulation satisfies thoseobjectives. The core of the Agency'sBCT methodology is a comparison of thecosts of removing additional pounds ofconventional pollutants for industrywith comparable costs of removal for anaverage publicly owned treatmentworks (POTW). This cost figure for thePOTW constitutes the basic measure of"reasonableness" established by theAct. As Senator Muskie noted:

The Administrator must determine whetheror not the cost of achieving reductions ofconventional pollutants bears a reasonablerelationship to the amount of effluentreduction achieved. In making thisdetermination, the Administrator is tocompare the costs of industrial effluentreduction to the cost of municipal wastetreatment.

There are, however, a range ofadditional factors which are significantin establishing BCT. EPA interprets andapplies these factors as follows.

(1) BPT is the base point forevaluation of limitations onconventional pollutants. All costsbeyond BPT associated with the controlof conventional pollutants are used inthe BCT evaluation. No limitation morestringent than BPT can be established as3CT if it fails the cost reasonablenesscomparison.

(2) Effluent reduction benefits,calculated in terms of additional poundsof conventional pollutants removed, are

directly incorporated in the cost perpound comparison.

(3) A uniform measure ofreasonableness is established for allindustries throughout the country. Thisensures that no industry will be requiredto exceed a specified cost per pound forremoval of conventional pollutants. Inconsequence, industries with high costsfor removal of 6onventional pollutants,in many cases, will be subject to lessstringent effluent limitations.

(4) A greater proportion of the totalcosts for control of conventionalpollutants will now be allocated toindustries and segments of industriescomprised of large facilities. Thesefacilities are able to removeconventional pollutants at the lowestcost.

(5) The final methodology results inthe relief which Congress intended forcontrol of conventional pollutants, andresolves the uneven impact of existingBAT limitations. Of the 93 industrysubcategories evaluated in detail in thisreview. 22 have reasonable BATlimitations, 13 have unreasonablelimitations, 6 have split determinationsdepending on the size of plant, 7 are notaffected by this review because the BATlimitations in those cases are designedto control toxic pollutants, while theremaining 45 as noted above will requirefurther analysis. For those subcategoriesin which BAT was found to beunreasonable, or requiring furtheranalysis, EPA will undertake furtherstudy to develop appropriate BCTlimitations.

These new limitations will result in asubstantial reduction in expenditures forconttol of conventional pollutants.While this regulation covers onlysecondary industries, when themethodology is applied to the-development of BCT limitations for thecontrol of conventional pollutants in theprimary industries, substantialadditional savings will be realized.

(b) The BCT Test. The BCT testcompares the cost for industry toremove a pound of conventionalpollutants to the cost incurred by aPOTW for removing a pound ofconventional pollutants. If the industrycost for a specific technology is lowerthan the POTW cost, the test is passedand the level of control of conventionalpollutants is considered reasonable. Ifthe industry costs of removal are higherthan the POTW costs, the test is failed,and BCT cannot be set at that level.

In the case of this Section 73secondary industry review, the BCT testis applied to existing BAT requirementsto determine if the existing promulgatedregulations are reasonable. If theexisting BAT limitation passes the test.

OCT is being promulgated as equivalentto the former BAT. If the BAT standarddoes not pass the test the existing BATis being withdrawn until an appropriateBCT can be set.

(1) Calculation of Industrial Costs:.The incremental annual costs arecalculated by determining the differencebetween the annual costs for a modelplant representing an industrialsubcategory to achieve BPT and theannual costs to achieve the candidateBCT for conventional pollutants. Annualcosts include operation andmaintenance expenses, capital costs,and depreciation. The data used by EPAin determining industrial costs for thisreview are drawn from the AgencyDevelopment Documents which wereprepared for each of the affectedindustries (See Appendix A). The dataare updated to 1976 dollars, so that theycan be compared on a consistent basis.

(2) Calculation of Industrial PollutantRemoval: The incremental removal ofconventional pollutants is calculated bydetermining the difference between theannual pounds of conventionalpollutants removed after compliancewith BPT and the pounds removed aftercompliance with the candidate BCT. Theconventional pollutants subject to this;review fall into two categories:suspended solids [TSS). and oxygen-demanding substances (BOD5 and oiland grease). To avoid "double counting"of the amount of pollutants removed, theincremental pounds removed from BPTto candidate BCT are calculated usingonly one pollutant from each group. Inthose cases where both BOD5 and oiland grease are subject to limitations, thepollutant with the greater amount ofremoval is included in the calculation. Ifa group is not represented in the effluentlimitation guideline for the subcategory.then it is not included in the evaluation.Table 3 details the pollutants to be usedin the calculation.

(3) Calculation of the In dustrial Ratio:The ratio of incremental annual costs toincremental conventional pollutantremoval is calculated as follows:(candidate BCT annual costs-Bprannual costs)/(candidate BCT pounds ofconventional pollutants removed-BPTpounds of conventional pollutantsremoved)This ratio represents the annualincremental cost to remove a pound ofconventional pollutants beyond BPT interms of dollars per pound.

(4) Calculation of the IndustrialRatios in the Absence of BAT For thosesubcategories in which BAT limitationsare unreasonable, and in thosesubcategories in which BAT has notbeen promulgated, the Agency will be

No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

considering several candidatetechnologies for BCT. In evaluating thereasonableness of these candidates,EPA will use BPT as a starting point anddetermine the incremental costs andlevels of pollutant removal from BPT toeach of the candidate technologies. BCTwill be promulgated based on the moststringent technology option whichpasses the reasonableness test, as wellas the other factors specified in the Act.

(5) Calculation of POTW Cost-Effectiveness Ratio: A single costreasonableness ratio for a POTW ofaverage size was developed forcomparison with industrial ratios. Thisfigure was based on the costs of aPOTW with a flow of two milliongallons per day to upgrade its facility,from secondary treatment (30 milligramsper liter (mg/1) of TSS, 30 mg/I of BOD5)to advanced secondary treatment (10mg/l of TSS, 10 mg/l of BOD5). Theresulting POTW cost reasonablenessratio is $1.15 per pound (1976 dollars).This figure will be updated periodicallyto account for inflation. A detaileddiscussion of the calculation of thePOTW ratio is contained in Appendix B.

(6) Comparison of Industrial andPOTWRatios: In order to determinewhether or not the industrial regulationunder review meets the BCTtest, theratio for the industrial subcategory iscompared to the POTW ratio. Thissingle POTW ratio is used for allindustrial comparisons. In this review, ifthe industrial ratio is less than thePOTW ratio, then a BCT limitation ispromulgated at the BAT level. Nofurther analysis is required. If theindustrial ratio is greater than thePOTW ratio, then the BAT requirementsare determined to be unreasonable andare withdrawn. BCT limitations will bepromulgated in such cases after furtheranalysis of alternative, less stringenttechnologies.5. Summary of Determinations

Table 4 summarizes the results of thereview, and detailed discussion of thedeterminations for each industrialsubcategory is presented in Appendix C.

Based on this review the Agency hasdetermined that the BAT control ofconventional pollutants for 22subcategories are reasonable and BOTfor these 22 subcategories are beingpromulgated as equal to the current BATguidelines. Most of the subcategoriesthat have been determined to bereasonable are in the Dairy, Grain Mills,and Fruits and Vegetable industries.

Thirteen qf the subcategoryregulations arejudged unrbasonable,and consequently, the'Agency willwithdraw the BAT effluent guidelinesfor conventional pollutants until the

proper levels of control can bedetermined. Regulations that areunreasonable are found in the Glass andFerroalloys industries.

There are six industry subcategorieswhere the limitations for one size modelplant are reasonable, but unreasonablefor another size, or where a portion ofthe subcategory is withdrawn pendingfurther study. The BT regulations willonly cover the size range of plantswhere the limitations are reasonable,and exclude those plants where thelimits are unreasonable. This was foundin the Dairyand Fruit and Vegetableindustries.

The Agency is suspending all 28 of thesubcategories in the Seafood category.In a separate action, the limitations forthese twenty-eight subcategories arebeing reviewed, and final BCTlimitations will be promulgated at alater date.

Also in a separate action, the Agencyhas agreed with Fruit and Vegetableindustry representatives to withdrawthe three anned and preserved fruit andvegetable processing subcategories. Thisnotice was published on June 20, 1979.44 FR 36033 BCT limitations will bepromulgated at a later date.

For one subcategory in the Feedlotsindustry (duck feedlots) the Agencydoes not have the necessary data toperform the cost test. As a-result, theAgency is withdrawing the BATlimitation for the ducks subcategoryuntil.further analysis can be performed.

For four Meat industry subcategories(meat packing), portions of the BATlimitations not applying to conventional'pollutants have been remanded by thecourts. In one of these subcategories, theTSS limitations were also remanded. Inresponse to this remand, theselimitations are currently being reviewed,In the interim, the Agency is nowwithdrawing the remaining BATlimitations for BOD5 and TSS. However,limitations for fecal coliform and pH inthese subcategories are being retainedbecause controls of these pollutants arethe same at BPT and BAT. In the case offour additional Meat industrysubcategories (meat pro cessing); theAgency is conducting a review of thelimitations beyond BPT, so BCT is notbeing promulgated at this' time. The finallimitations will be promulgated at alater date.

The two regulations for cane sugarrefining are currently being reviewed aspart of a court stipulation. Therefore, theAgency will not promulgate the finalBCT determinations at this time.

Spokesmen for the beet sugarindustry, the frozen potato processors,and portions of condensed whey andcondensed milk producers have

submitted data on costs of BPT level.treatment technology and theperformance of that technology. On thebasis of that data, the Agency wishes toconduct further review of potentiallimitations for this subcategory, and willnot promulgate BOT limitations at thistime.

Seven subcategories in the Asbestosindustry are not affected by this review.The BAT limitations for thesesubcategories require that facilitiesachieve zero discharge of pollutants.These limitations are designed to controlthe discharge of toxic pollutants and arethus not subject to a BCT analyqis.6. Modifications to the Proposal

Since the publication of the proposedregulations in August of 1978, EPA hasbeen reviewing the regulations Inresponse to comments from the publicand to new information that has becomoavailable to the Agency. Commentswere received from 79 parties includingmany industrial groups, the Council onWage and Price Stability, and severalState governments. The commentersraised significant concerns with theapproach taken by EPA in developingthe propbsed regulations. The Commentsfall into two general categories: thosepertaining to the overall methodology,including the POTW and industrialcalculations; and, those concerning theindividual industry data used. Detailedresponses to the comments regarding theindividual industry data are presentedin Appendix C, and responses to themajor public comments regarding theoverall methodology are presented InAppendix D.

In conjunction with the publiccomment review, EPA has reevaluatedits methodology and its data base andconcluded that certain changes inapproach are appropriate. The moreimportant modifications in themethodology used by EPA which affectfinal BCT regulations are describedbelow,

(a) POTW Cost and Operational Data.In its initial BCT proposal in developingthe POTW cost comparison figure, EPArelied on a document entitled "AnAnalysis of Cost Experience forWastewater Tieatment Plants," Sincethat time, EPA has published'two newdocuments, "Construction Costs forMunicipal Wastewater TreatmentPlants, 1973-77" and "Analysis ofOperations and Maintenance Costs forMunicipal Wastewater TreatmentSystems." These provide more accurateand up-to-date information on municipaltreatment costs and hence are moreappropriate for use in the POTW-industry comparisons. EPA announcedthat it was considering the use of these

50734 Federal Register / Vol. 44,

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 50735

two documents in a Federal Registernotice of April 2,1979.44 Fed. Reg.19214. Appendix B'describes in detailhow the municipal treatment costs usedin the BCT evaluation is derived fromthe documents. Responses to commentson the April 2 notice are included inAppendix D.

(b) Using a Single, POTW CostReasonableness Figure. The BCTstandards are based on a comparison ofindustry and POTW treatment costs andlevels of removal. In the proposedmethodology, industries were comparedto POTW's having comparable rates offlow. Costs for these POTWs rangedfrom $.38 to $1.72 per pound of pollutantremoved. This approach resulted insome industries with relatively hightreatment costs being jiidged to havereasonable BAT limitations becausethey were compared to a POTW with ahigh cost. Other industries, however,with relatively low costs, weredetermined to have unreasonable BATlimitations because the POTW theywere measured against had low costs.To rectify this inequity, EPA is nowemploying a single POTW comparisonfigure based On an average size POTWof 2 mgd. This approach will result i amore "economically efficient" solution.Those subcategories that can cheaplyachieve stringent limitations willcontinue to do so, but for those where itis relatively expensive, some relief willbe given. The single cost figure approachhas the additional advantage of beingfar easier to apply. A discussion of thespecific calculation of the POTW figureis contained in Appendix B.

(c) The Concentration Test Themethodology used by EPA in developingthe proposed BCT regulations included asecond, "concentration test", that wasapplied to any industry regulation whichdid not pass the BCT test. In caseswhere an industry's effluent had ansignificantly higher pollutantconcentration than a POTW, BATrequirements were retained as BCT.This test was uniformly opposed bycommenters, who argued that itdiscourages water conservation, and isabritrary and one-sided. EPA agrees,and has decided that the concentrationtest will not be used in making BCTdeterminations.

(d) Calculation of POTWo CostComparison Figure. In its initialproposal, EPA calculated its POTW costcomparison figures based on thedifference in costs and levels of removalbetween a POTW constructed to havean effluent of 25 mg/l of BOD, 25 mg/l ofTSS and one constructed to achieve 12mg/l of BOD and 12 mg/I of TSS. TheAgency is now calculating the POTW

cost comparison figure based on theincremental costs and levels of removalassociated with the upgrading of anexisting POTW from secondarytreatment (30 mg/l BOD. 30 mg/l TSS) toadvanced secondary treatment (10 mg/lBOD. 10 mg/l TSS).

Although Congress specificallyrequired a comparison of the "cost andlevels of reduction" of conventionalpollutants from POTWs with those ofindustry, nowhere in the Act or itslegislative history is there specificdirection as to how the POTW costcomparison figure is to be derived. It isclear, however, that the POTWV costs areto provide a benchmark for judging the"reasonableness" of industrylimitations.

One appropriate measure of POTWcosts is the marginal costs of removal atsecondary treatment. Although Congressdid not state that the secondarytreatment level was significant indetermining BCT, it is the current legalrequirement for most POTWs and thelevel at which the bulk of existingPOTWs are now operating. Calculationof the costs per pound of conventionalpollutant removal based on theincrement from secondary to advancedsecondary yields the best approximationof such marginal costs. Although anincrement which narrowly straddlessecondary treatment would have beenpreferable in indentifying marginalcosts, adequate data on such anincrement do not exist.

In establishing the POTW costcomparison figure, Congress may alsohave been concerned with identifyingthe "knee-of-the-curve" for POTW costsand effluent reduction benefits. TheAgency has submitted to Congressanalyses which indicate that costs forpollution control to achieve pollutantconcentrations lower than 10 mg/l ofBOD and 10 mg/l of TSS begin to risesharply in relation to effluent reductionbenefits. Essentially, advancedsecondary treatment marks the "knee-of-the-curve" with respect to POTWcosts. Use of the secondary to advancedsecondary increment thus effectivelydetermines the cost per pound toachieve this maximum, cost-effectivelevel of control.

Finally, basing the comparison figureon the cost of a POTW to upgrade fromsecondary to advanced secondarytreatment roughly parallels theindustrial increment underconsideration. Congress, in establishingBCT, was concerned about thereasonableness of the requirement thatindustry progress from BPT to BAT.Similarly, focusing on the costs toupgrade existing POTWs beyondseconddry treatment is appropriate.

In selecting this narrow increment theAgency is aware that the parallel inlegal requirements for industry andPOTW is not exact. Industries arerequired to meet BAT, and now BCT, byJuly 1,1984. The comparablerequirement for POTWs is achievementof "best practicable wastewatertreatment technology" ("BPWVT") byJuly 1, 1983. However, BPWATr has neverbeen precisely defined by EPA. andmost POTWs will continue to operate atsecondary treatment. Nonetheless,Congress has not modified theobligation of POTWs to achieve morestringent levels. Although concernedwith funding of expensive advancedwastewater treatment systems,Congress has continued to fundconstruction of POTWs at better thansecondary levels. EPA has judged thatfunding for construction of POTWsemploying advanced secondarytreatment is reasonable, and not subjectto special intensified review.

(e) Calculation of ConventionaIPollutant Removal. EPA originallyproposed that if BOD5 and oil andgrease were both regulated, only thepounds of BOD5 were to be included inthe calculation of the incrementalpounds of conventionalpollutantsremoved. This has been modified andwhere both are regulated. the pollutantwith the greater amount of removal willbe included in the calculation. TheAgency feels that the total effluentreduction benefits are best identified byusing the pollutant in a given categorywhich has the greater amount ofremoval in the calculation. However. asingle pollutant in a category willcontinue to be used in the calculationbecause of the difficulty of allocatingcosts of removal between pollutants.

Additionally, total phosphorus andchemical oxygen demand were proposedas conventional pollutants, and theywere included in the Agency's proposedBO methodology. However, theproposal to designate these pollutants asconventional has been withdrawn, andthey have been excluded fromconsideration in this rulemaking.7. Information Available

Copies of the Federal Register noticecan be obtained, without charge, bycontacting: Sandra Jones. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. 401 M Street. S.W.(WH-586). Washington. D.C. 20460,202-426-2617.

The costs and pollutants removal dataused in this review are taken from thedevelopment documents and economicanalyses that were published in thedevelopment of BATguidelines. Thedocuments are available for publicinspection at all EPA regional libraries

50736 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

and the EPA headquarters library inWashington, D.C. Also, a 200 pagesummary of cost and removal data isopen to public inspection at the abovelibraries. -

In consideration of the foregoing,affected 40 CFR Parts 400-460 arehereby amended as set forth below.

Dated: July 31,1979.Barbara Blum,Actflig Administrator.

Table 1.-Industries and SubcategoriesWhich Did Not Require Further AnalysisGrain Mills (4):

Normal Wheat Flour Milling-AnimalFeed.

Normal Rice Milling-Hot Cereal.Cement Manufacturing (2):

Non-Leaching-Materials Storage PilesRunoff.

Feedlots (1): All Subcategories Except Ducks.Fertilizer (4):

Phosphate-Ammonium SulfateProduction.

Ammonia-Mixed and Blend FertilizerProduction.

Phosphate Manufacturing (2):Deflourinated Phosphate Rock-

Deflourinated Phosphoric Acid.Ferroalloys Manufacturing (1): Other Calcium

Carbide Furnaces.Glass Manufacturing (2):

Sheet Glass Manufacturing-Rolled GlassManufacturing.

Asbestos Manufacturing (4]: .Asbestos Millboard-Solvent Recovery.Coating or Finishing of Asbestos Textiles-

Vapor Absorption.

Table 2.-ndustries and SubcategoriesWhich Were StudiedDairy Products Processing (12):

Receiving Stations.Fluid Products;Cultured Products.Butter.Cottage Cheese and Cultured Cream

Cheese.Natural and Processed Cheese.Fluid Mix for Ice Cream and other Frozen

Desserts.Ice Cream, Frozen Desserts Novelties and

other Dairy Desserts.Dry Milk.CondensedWhey.Dry Whey.Condensed Milk.

Grain Mills (6):Corn Wet Milling.Corn Dry Milling.Bulgur Wheat Flour Milling.Parboiled Rice Processing.Ready-to-eat Cereal.-Wheat Starch and Gluten. -

Canned and Preserved Fruits and VegetablesProcessing [8):

Apple Juice.Apple Products.Citrus Products.Frozen Potato Products.Dehydrated Potato Products.Canned and Preserved Fruits.Canned and Preserved Vegetables.Canned and Miscellaneous Specialities.

Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing(28):

Farm Raised Catfish,Conventional Blue Crab.Tuna Processing.Fish Meal Processing.Mechanized Blue Crab.Non-Remote Alaskan Crab Meat.Remote Alaskan Crab Meat.Non-Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and

Crab Section.Non-Alaskan Scallop Processing.Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and, Crab

Section.Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing in

the Contiguous States.Non-Remote Alaskan Shrimp.Remote Alaskan Shrimp.Northern Shrimp Processing in the. Contiguous Sta tes.

Southern Non-Breaded Shrimp Processingin the Contiguous States.

Non-Alaskan Whole Crab and CrabSection Processing.

Breaded Shrimp Processing in theContiguous States.

West Coast Hand Butchered SalmonProcessing.

West Coast Mechanized SalmonProcessing. -

"Non-Alaskan Conventional Bottom Fish.Non-Alaskan Mechanized Bottom Fish

Processing.Hand-Shucked Clam Processing-Mechanized Clam Processing.

Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked OysterProcessing.

Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand-ShuckedOyster Processing.

Steamed and Canned Oyster Processing.Sardine Processing.Non-Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing.Abalone Processing.

Sugar Processing (3):Beet Sugar Processing.Crystalline Cane Sugar Refining.Liquid Cane Sugar Refining.

Cement Manufacturing (1):Leaching.

Feedlots (1):Ducks.

Phosphate Manufacturing (1):Sodium Phosphates.

Ferroalloys Manufacturing (6):Open Electric Furnaces with Wet Air

Pollution Control Devices.-

Covered Electric Furnaces and otherSmelting Operations with Wet AirPollution Control Dqvices.

Slag Processing.Covered Calcium Carbide with Wet Air

Pollution Control Devices,Electrolytic Manganese Products.Electrolytic Chromium.

Glass Manufacturng (10]:Insulation Fiberglass.Plate Glass Manufacturing.Float Glass Manufacturing.Automotive Glass Tempering.Automotive Glass L minating.Glass Container Manufacturing.Glass Tubing (Danlier) Manufacturing.Television Picture Tube Envelope

Manbfacturing.Incandescent Lamp Envelope

Manufacturing.Hand Pressed and Blown Glass

Manufacturing.Asbestos Manufacturing (7]:

Asbestos-Cement Pipe.Asbestos-Cement Sheet.Asbestos Paper (Starch Binder).Asbestos Paper (Elastomerfc Binder),Asbestos Roofing.Asbestos Floor Tile.Wet Dust Collection.

Meat Products (10):Simple Slaughterhouse.Complex Slaughterhouse.Low Processing Packinghouse.High Processing Packinghouse.Small Processor.Meat Cutter.Sausage and Luncheon Meats Processor.Ham Processor,Canned Meats Processor.Renderer.

Table 3

Pollutants regulated Pollutants considered InIndustrial calculation

605 .................... SODS.BOD5 and TSS .............. SODS and TSSBOoS, O1 and Grease ........... BOD5' or Oil and Grease.TSS' ...................... TSS.TSS, Oil and Grease ............ -TSS, Oil and Grease.TSS, BOD5, 01 and Grease... TSS, BOD51 (or Oil and

Grease 1)Oil and Grease ....................... Oil and Grease.

A EPA will use the one ollutant (BODS Of oil and grease)which has the most incremental removal.

Table 4

(A) (B) (C) (D) - (E)

BAT withdrawn BAT BATIndustry and subcategory (CFR Part) BCT=BAT unreasonable, pending withdrawn analyssl

BAT further In response not required,withdrawn study to litigation no action

1. Receiving stations-......2. Fluid produce.. ......3. Cultured produce.--... .4. Butter5. Cottage, cream cheese......6. Natural, processed cheese..-7. Fluid mar Ice cream.........8. Ice ceam. frozen desserts....9. Condensed milk...

10. Dry milk-

11. Condensed whey ....12. Dry whey . .

(405.13) IX(405.23) x(405.33) x(405.43) x(405.53) x(405.63) 2X

9405.73) x(405.83) x(405.93) 3X

(405.103) 4x

(405.113)(405.123) x

x . ...... ... ........°. ............ °.. .-...--...

. ................. I... ° .o . ........ .°•,, .... ,..... , . .... I , . .... 1................I......,. ...... .°.. , , 1,... .,1,,...,..-111°.... ..,+

. .. ......................... .. ....o ... . . ..............°. ,,.,, . .. ........ -'.

.. .. ......................... °... .. .......

...... ......... ,-.....

. .... ...- ax ...x.......... .....................

3°.,x , 5x .......°.... ... ,° ... ... , .. ,..

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

cCL

x i

M

-~ I-C

0

w 10

- 0-CC

C

C,

0

C,

o0 .

000

0 I

ii

75

= .. =- .-

8~l0 "O

SiI I I iii

Sri .I I II

x xx

I I

A Z I

=.: = ,. : £ 516I~c:

XXXXXXX

*Xxx

x

0000=o° O

fin-

0 0 0

I'I

XxXXXXXXX

t

iIii Ixxxii x I

0000--00--0D'

M 410 26 ,0 iG:II

XXXxxx

0 0 00

l~IlXXXX - I

I I -- IIIIIIxx x

-n

Ii

K KXXx xxx

Ii s gmm

xxxx: xxx

liii.

-n 'i---

WI I C? CI

00

- H

507i37

C.0

3: C-2

C70

M M

0

0

S

HE5. iR.

nvo~o. zo

x

X


'Natural, Processed Cheese-Small plants (processing 100,000 lbs/day or less of milk equivalent) ea reasonable. Largeplants (processing over 100,000 lbs/day of milk equivalent) are unreasonable. The liritations have been rewritten to cover onlythe small plants.

' =Condensed Milk-Small plants (processing less thar 100,000 pounds per day of milk equivalent) are being withdrawnpending further study. Largo plants (processing over 100,000 potinds per day of milk equivalent) are reasonable. The firnitationshave been rewritten to cover only the large plants.

4Dry Milk-Smafl plants (processing 145,000 pounds per day or less of milk equivalent) are found unreasonable. Largeplants (over 145,000 pounds per day of milk equivalent) are reasonable. The subcategory regulation has been rewritten to coveronly those plants processing more than 145,000 pounds per day of milk equivalent

'Condensed Whey-Small plants (processing 300,000 pounds per day or less of raw fluid whey input) are withdrawn pend-Ing further study. Large p!ants (processing over 300,000 pounds per day of raw fluid whey input) are unreasonable. All plants aretherefore, In effect, unreasonable.

'Apple Juice-Small plants (processing 100 tons per day) are found unreasonable. Large plants (processng 500 tons perday) are found reasonable. The Ulmitations are rewritten to cover only those plants processing 500 tons per day or over.

7Apple Products-Small plants (processing under 10 tons per day) were found to be unreasonable. Large plants (over 100tons per day) were found reasonable. The proposed subcategory regulation has been rewritten to cover only those plants proc-essing over 100 tons per day. A plants processing less than 100 tons per day, therefore, are, in effect, unreasonable.

'Ducks-There is insufficient data available to evaluate the BAT limitations for this subcategory. The li mitations am being%ithdrawn until such time that BCT limitations can be developed.

PART 405-EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSGUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS OFPERFORMANCE AND PRETREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCESFOR THE DAIRY PRODUCTS-PROCESSING INDUSTRY POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 405 for theDairy Products Processing IndustryPoint Source Category is amended asfollows:

1. (a) The sections listed below areredesignated as follows and the originalsectipn numbers reserved for future use.

Original RevisedSubcategory section section

designation designation(40 CPS) (40 CPR)

Fluid products........ 40523 40527Cultured products _........ 405.23 405.37Butter......... ..... . . 405.43 405.47Cottage, cream cheese - _ 405.53 405.57Fluid mix Ice cream-....... 405.73 405.77Ice cream, frozen desserts,

novelties and other dairy desserts 405.83 405.07Dry whey 405.123 405.127

(b) The title andflrst paragraph of thesections redesignated above areamended to read as follows:

§- Effluent Ilmitations'guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventionial pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by-apoint source subject to the provisions of'this subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.

2. The sections listed below arewithdrawn and the section numbersreserved for future use.

SectionSubcategory designation

(40 CF)

ReceiVng stations- ........... 405.13Natural and processed cheese- _ 405.63Condensed milk 405.93Dry mnl . 405.103Condensed whey 405.113

3. A new § 405.17 for the ReceivingStations subcategory is added asfollows:

§.405.17 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality" of pollutants orpollutant properties controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology..," (a) For receiving statioAt s receiving

more than 150,000 lb/day of milkequivaleit (more than 15,600 lb/day ofBOD5 input).

Effluent characteristic -Effluent limitations

PH- Within tie range 6.6 to 9.0.

(b) For receiving stations receiving150,000 lb/day or less of milk equivalent(under 15,600 lb/day of BOD5 input).

Effluent tmiations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for , values for 30

any I day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1.000 fig ofBODsinput)

BOD.-- 0.150 0.075.188 .094

English units (pounds per 100 Ki of8005 Input)

pH ............... Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

English units (pounds per 100 lb ofB005 Input)

8O05._ -. .0.015 0.000.019 .009

... Within the range 0.0 to 9.0.

4. A new § 405.67 for the Natural andProcessed Cheese subcategory is addedas follows:

§ 405.67 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional polluant controltechnology.

(a) For plants processing more than100,000 lb/day of milk equivalent (morethan 10,390 lb/day of B0D5 input).

Effluent characteristic Effluent ldmitatlons

p Within the range 6.0 to 0.0.

(b) For plants processing 100,000 lb/day or less of milk equivalent (less than10,390 lb/day of BeOD5 input).

Effluent limitatons

Effluent Average of dalycharacteristic Maximum for values for 10

any I day consecutve daysshall not exceed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 kg ofBOD5 input)

BOD$. . ....... 0.250 0.12STSS.... . ... 312 ,156pH. _ - Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Englih units (pounds per 100 lb ofBOD5 Input)

SOD.-, 0.025 0.013TSS. .........- .031- .016pH Wi...... thin the range 6.0 to 9.0.

5. A new § 405.97 for the Condensed

Milk subcategory is added as follows-


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis liubpart after application of the best

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wec]nesday. August 29, 1979 1 Rules and Regulations 50739

conventional pollutant controltechnology. -W

(a) For plants processing more than100,000 lb/day of milk equivalent (morethan 10,390 lb/day of BOD5 input).

Eftut liitations

Average of daEffluent Magnun for vale W 30

characterisW any I day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

Metric urft (klograms per 1.0O0 kg ofB005 lrpAt

BODY . 0.760 0.380TSS- .950 .475pH WWin the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Eng lsh xit (poruxn perI00 D of

BOD5-- -- 0.076 0.038T _ .. 095 .O48pH Wtiin the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b] For plants condensing 100,000 lbs/day or less of milk equivalent (less than10,390 lbs/day of BOD5 input),

Effluent characteristic Effluent ritatonrs

pH Wttn the range 6. to 9.0.

6. A new § 405107 for the Dry Milksubcategory is added as follows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.

(a] For milk drying plants with aninput equivalent to more than 145,000lb/day of milk equivalent (more than15,070 lb/day of BOD5 input).

Effluent woitations

Effluent Avee of dycharacteristic Maxmn for values for 30

any I day consecumte dayssham not eKceed--

Metic wits (iograms per 1.0O0 kg of

BOD....-0 _- 0.0 0.180TSS .450 .225pH Wiftn the range 6.0 to 9.0.

EngMsh wits (pounds per 100 b ofSOObiiputJ

BOD- 0.036 0.018TSS .045 .023pH Mrhin the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b For milk drying plants with aninput equivalent to 145,000 lb/day orless of milk equivalent (15,070 lb/day orless of BOD5in ut).

Effluentd wact" 0%.M E~lWW..ao

pH W~t e rangs &O to 9-0.

7. A new § 405.117 for the CondensedWhey subcateg6ry is added as follows:

§ 405.117 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the flegree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional polutant controltechnology.

- Mwet chaacteo. FP-."A Wru. Zx*

W W'h tft ralte &0 to 9D.

PART 406-GRAIN MILLS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 406 for theGrain Mills Point Source Category isamended as follows:

1. (a) The sections listed below areredesignated as follows and the originalsection numbers reserved for future use.

Or gra Rem sdSubcat- ay sezt n saWn

dcs1;Tst;3n dan(4D cFRn (4-0Co

Con wet zng. 46.13 4:6.17Corn dry rn n 4:6.23 4.21ParbWod rice prozes*ng 4.6-3 45-67Realy to eat cereal- 4%m (.97Wheat starch and g.en 46.103 406.107

(b) The title and first paragraph of thesections redesignated above areamended to read as follows:

§- Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.


2. The new sections listed below areadded as follows:

§ - Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.

secstion

NWorralw 5,:orr= rx. 406.37MibAl rke rr;. g 406.57Aal fee 46.77Wt cea 406.87

§ 406.43 [Reserved]3. The following section is withdrawn

and the section number reserved forfuture use.

,5eckx&tcsLagory

(40 CFM

r8haar tow n . . 40M43

4. A new § 40.47 for the BulgurWheat Flour MUllng Subcategory isadded as follows:



pH W th rarge 6.0 to 9..

PART 407-CANNED ANDPRESERVED FRUITS ANDVEGETABLES PROCESSING POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFIR Subchapter N, Part 407, forthe Canned and Preserved Fruits andVegetables Processing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

1. The sections listed below arewithdrawn and the section numberreserved for future use.

50740 Federal Register / Vol. 44, N.19/Wdedy uut2,17 ue n euain


(40 CFR)

Apple Ju-ce .. 407.13Apple products.--. 407.23Frozen potato products- 407.43

2. (a) The sections listed below areredesignated as follows and the originalsection numbers reserved for futureuse.

Original RevisedSubcategory section section

designation designation

Citrus products .... . ................ 407.33 407.37Dehydrated potato products..- 407.53 407.57


§ - Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best c6nventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subjectto the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.

3. A new § 407.17 for the Apple Juicesubcategory is added as follows:

§407.17 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology:

(a) For plants processing 500 tons perday ormore of raw material.

Effluent lirnltations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for 30

any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exce&t-

Metric units (kilograms per 1.000 kg of -raw riateial]

BOD ........ .... 0.20 0.10TSS . .20 .10

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

English units (pounds per 1.000 lb-of rawmateria)

0.20 0.10.20 .10

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b] For plants processing less than 500tons per day of raw material.

Effluent characteristic Effluent limitat6ons

pH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

4. A new § 407.27 is added to theApple Products Subcategory and readsas follows:

§ 407.27 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable bythe application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

(a) The following limitations apply toplants producing more than 100 tons perday of final product and establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, which may bedischarged by a pointsource subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology:

Effluent imttions

Effluent - Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for 30

any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

Metric units Qdograms per 1,000 kg ofraw material)

BOD5. 0.20 0.10TSS..- .20 .10pH -..... Within therange 6.0 to 9.0.

English units (pounds per 1,000 lb of rawmatbrial)

BOD5 ..... 0.20 0.10TSS .-..- .. . .20 .10pH - -- Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The following limitations apply toplants producing less than 100 tons per.day of final product and establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology:

Effluent characteristic Effluent limitations

PH Win the range 6.0 to 9.0.

5. A new§ 407.47 is added to theFrozen Potato Products subcategory andreads as follows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or

pollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the best,conventional pollutant controltechnology.

Effluent characteristi Effluent limitations

PH ....... ...... ........... Within the tango 6.0 to 9.0,

PART 408-CANNED ANDPRESERVED SEAFOOD PROCESSINGPOINT SOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR; Subchapter N, Part 408, forthe Canned and Preserved SeafoodProcessing Point Source Category isamended as follows:

1. The sections listed below arewithdrawn, and the section numbersreserved for future use.

SactionSubcategory designation

(40 CFR)

Farm Raised Catfish Processing 408.13Conventional Blue Crab Processing- 400.23Mechanized Blue Crab Processing ................... 400,03ion-Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing...... 400.43

Remote Alaskan Crab Meat Processing ............. 400.53Non-Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab

Section Processing ........ ............. ......- 400.63Remote Alaskan Whole Crab and Crab Section

Processing 400.73Dungeness and Tanner Crab Processing In the

Contiguous States .............. ,.. 400.83Non.Remote Al ,,tan Shrimp Procsslng ....... 408.93Remote Alaskan Shrimp Processing ........... - 400.103Northern Shrimp Processing In the Contiguous

States . - - 408.113Southern Non-Breadcd Shrimp Processng In the

Contiguous States.................................. 400.123Breaded Shrimp Processing In the conliguous

States ..... ..... ................ 408,133Tuna Processing 400,143Fish Meal Proccss ng . 408.153West Coast Hand-Butcherd Salmon Processing 408,103mlest Coast Mechanized Salmon Processing 400.193Non-Alaskan Correnional Bottom Fish PrOcess.

ing. ..................................... 400.213Non-Alaskan Mechanized Bottom Fish Procass-

ing ............ .......-- 408.223Hand Shucked Clam Processing ............. 408.233'Mechanized Clam Processing ........................... 400-43Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Processing.. 400253AIJantic Gulf Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Proc.

e................ 4O63Steam and Canned Oyster Processing .............. 408.273Sairdine Processing .................... 400203Non-Alaskan Scallop Processing .... 408.303Nan-Alaskan Herring Fillet Procssing .................. 403123Abalone Processing ........................... 408.333

PART 409-SUGAR PROCESSINGPOINT SOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR, Subchapter N, Part 409, forthe Sugar Processing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

§ 409.13 [Amended]1. (a) The following § 409.13 of the

Beet Sugar Processing Subcategory Isamended to read as follows:

(a) * * *(1) The following limitations establish

the maximum permissible discharge ofBOS......-.PH ..... .. ......... ..

No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations50740 Federal Reglster / Vol. 44,

No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 1 Rules and Regulations 50741

process waste water pollutants whenthe process waste water dischargeresults from barometric condensingoperations only.

Effut characteristics Effluent I'nftat rn

Tefpaatre - Tenperature not to xceed thetemperature of cooled wateracceptale for return to the heatproducing process and in no eveotgreater amn 32 C (W" F).

(2) The following limitations establishthe maximum permissible discharge ofprocess waste water pollutants whenthe process waste water dischargeresults, in whole or in part, frombarometric condensing operations andany other beet sugar processingoperation.

Fl&uetdaracteritics Effluent lrrtatons

Temperat'e Not to exceed 3r C (90 F).

(b) Paragraph (b) of § 409.13 iswithdrawn.


Sucategory .Secton

destgnati

crystakre cane Sugar Reftkg 40923Lkpd Cane Sugar Refining 40933

3. The new sections listed below areadded as follows;



Enuent characteristic Effluent limitations

PH Vn, th the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Subcategcy Sectiondeignbon

Beet Sugar Refinig 409.17Cystarlme Cane Sugar Refa o-g 40927Uquid Cane Sugar Refinn , 409.37

PART 411-CEMENTMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 411 for theCement Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

§§411.13,411.23 [Amended]1. Section 411.13 of the Nonleaching

Subcategory and § 411.23 of theLeaching Subcategory are amended toread as follows:

§ - Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable.

E ama dctor*ic Efflen ,imhabos (amoart foran1 day)

Toreratr hea Ow Wo to exceed 3- c: rise above I-Aet

2. A new § 411.17 is added for theNonleaching Subcategory and reads asfollows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection. which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.

charcteristis(V-i-xn for Lny I draA

Metic at .gAkg of vpro

TSS , _ 0005pH tlYM ti range 6.0 to 9.0

TSS 0b(W.00'5lm

pHt 94 nge &C so Q

3. A new § 411.27 for the LeachingSubcategory is added as follows:



Entc haractpH - iti h range 6.0 bo 9.0

4. (a) The section listed belowisredesignated as follows and the originalsection number reserved for future use.

O'*nt Reaeiedsul"e-wgc sectb section

WW-Nies Sborage Mie Rrf 411M3 411.21


§ 411.37 Effluent limitations guidelmesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection. which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.

PART 412-FEEDLOTS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 412 for theFeedlots Point Source Category isamended as follows:

1. A new § 412.17 for AllSubcategories Except Ducks is added asfollows:


(a) Subject to the provisions ofparagraph (b) of this section. thefollowing limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection. which may be dischargedby apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology. There shall be no dischargeof process waste water pollutants trnavigable waters.

(b) Process waste pollutants in theoverflow may be discharged tonavigable waters whenever rainfallevents, either chronic or catastrophic,cause an overflow of process wastewater from a facility designed,constructed and operated to contain allprocess generated waste waters plus therunoff from a 25 year 24 hour rainfallevent for the locatioft of the pointsource.

Federal Register / Vol, 44,

50742 Federal Register / Vol. 4, No. 169'/ Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

§ 412.23 [Reserved]2. Section 412.23 for the Ducks

Subcategory is withdrawn and thesection number reserved for future use.

PART 418-FERTILIZERMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 418 for theFertilizer Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

1. Section 418.13 of the PhosphateSubcategory is amended as follows:

§ 418.13 Effluent imitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

(c) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in process wastewaterpursuant to the limitations of paragraph(b) of this section shall not exceed thevalues listed in the following table:

Effluent limitations (mg/1)

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristics Maximum for values for 30


Total Phosphorus(as7P) . .5 5Fluorie..... 75 25

The total suspended solid limitations setforth in this paragraph shall be waivedfor process wastewater from a calciumsulfate storage pile runoff facility,operated separately or in combinationwith a water recirculation system, whichis chemically treated and then clarifiedor settled to meet the other pollutantlimitations set forth in this paragraph.

(d) The concentration o f pollutantsdischarged in contaminated non-processwastewater shall not exceed the valueslisted in the following table:

Effluent limitations (mg/)

Average of daiyEffluent Maximum for values for 30

characteristics any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed

Total Phosphorus(as P) ....... 3O 5

Fluoride ........ 75 25

2. A new § 418.17 for the PhosphateSubcategory is added as follows:

§ 418.17 Effluent limitations andguidelines representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attained by theapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties which may bedischarged by a point source subject to

the provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology:

(a) Subject to the provision ofparagraphs (b) and (c) of this section,the following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology: There shall be no dischargeof process wastewater pollutants tonavigable waters.

(b] Process wastewater pollutantsfrom a calcium sulfate storage pilerunoff facility operated separately or incombination with a water recirculationsystem. designed, constructed andoperated to maintain a surge capacityequal to the runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event may be discharged,after treatment to the standards set forthin paragraph (c) of this section,whenever chronic or catastrophicprecipitation events cause the waterlevel to rise into the surge capacity.Process wastewater must be treated anddischarged whenever the water levelequals or exceeds the'midpoint of thesurge capacity.

(c) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in process wastewaterpursuant to the limitations of paragraph(b) of this section shall not exceed thevalues listed in the following table:

Effluent rn ttions (mg/I)

Average of daEffluent Maximum for values for 30

characteistics any I day consecutive daysshal not exceed

TSS .150 50

The total suspended solid limitationsset forth in this paragraph shall bewaived for process wastewater from acalcium sulfate storage pile runofffacility, operated separately or incombination with a water recirculationsystem, which is chemically treated andthen clarified or settled to meet theother pollutant limitations bet forth inthis paragraph.

3. A new § 418.27 for the AmmoniaSubcategory is added as follows:

§ 418.27 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluent.reduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality ofpollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the best

I

conventional pollutant controltechnology.

Effluent characteristic Effluent lImitation

PH --- Within tho range 0.0 to 0.0

4. The sections listed below are addedas follows:



Subcategory ScIondesgnation

Arnnonrum Sulfate Production....... 410.07Mixed and Blend Ferrzer Prduction.... 410,77

PART 422-PHOSPHATEMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 422 for thePhosphate Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

1. Section 422.43 of the DefluorinatedPhosphate Rock Subcategory Isamended as follows:

§ 422.43 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

(c) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in process waste waterpursuant to the limitations of paragraph(b) of this section shall not exceed thevalues listed in the following table:

(Milligrams Per lU10r

Effluent limitations

Effluent Avemago of dallycharacteristics Maximum for values for 30

6any I day Consecutivo daysshall not exceed

Total Phosphorus(as P)... . .. 105 05

Fluorde (as F)-. 75 25

(d) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in contaminated non-processwastewater shall not exceed the valueslisted in the following table:

No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 50743

Effluent lmtaVtons (mgII)

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristcs Mayi-msn for, values for 3

any 1 day consecuive daysshal not exceed

Tota Phonphowa(as P) - 105 35

Morice 75 25-

2. A new § 422.47 for theDefluorinated Phosphate RockSubcategory is added as follows-


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication" of the best conventionalpollutant control technology:

(a) Subject to the provisions of -paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of thissection, the following limitationsestablish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties,controlled by this section, which may be,discharged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.

(b Process waste water pollutantsfrom a cooling water recirculationsystem designed, constructed andoperated to maintain a surge capacityequal to the runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event may be discharged,after treatment to the standards set forthin paragraph (c) of this section,whenever chronic or catastrophicprecipitation events cause the waterlevel in the pond to rise into the surgecapacity. Process waste water must betreated and discharged whenever thewater level equals or exceeds the mid-point of the surge capacity.


(Mogarns per te)

Ofent 1fnatons

Eflket Average of dailycwIlact a Marzn for values for 30

any I day cosective d3asshall not exceed

TSs_ ... O150 50pHl W&;o the range 6.0 to 9.5.

The total suspended solid limitationset forth in this paragraph shall bewaived for process waste water from acalcium sulfate storage pile runofffacility. operated separately or incombination with a water recirculationsystem, which is chemically treated andthen clarified or settled to meet theother pollutant limifations set forth inthis paragraph.

(d) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in contaminated non-processwaste water shall not exceed the valueslisted in the following table:

Effluent jf..et

pH Wlt*i ft range &0 lo 9.5.

3. Section 422.53 of the DefluorinatedPhosphoric Acid Subcategory isamended as follows:

§ 422.53 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicalyachievable.


(M-Wa=~ P- I !U

ElfImt Avrae of da.01dasractaisti v airnw for val" for 3

WWI day C€e.ive *SV'-41 not exceed

Total Phosp1'xou

(as P) ICS 35FMorJe (as F)_ 75 25

(d) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in contaminated non-processwastewater shall not exceed the valueslisted in the following table:

twaPer par)

Er-=wt RnX. s~x. Jtt~erE ea

EFflN"9 Averg ol do/ycahracc:scs I MAJe for va for z5

y~~ I dxy Wsecz. da3)s" s'- '', not excee

Total Phosphorus(as P) 105 35

Pu 9_de(aF) 75

4. A new § 422.57 for theDefluorinated Phosphoric AcidSubcategory is added as follows:

§ 422.57 Effluent limitations gutdelimsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applcation ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology:

(a) Subject to the provisions ofparagraphs (b}. Cc) and (d) of thissection, the following limitationsestablish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties,controlled by this section, which maybedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.

(b) Process waste waterpollutantsfrom a cooling water recirculationsystem designed. constructed andoperated to maintain a surge capacityequal to the runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event may be discharged.after treatment to the standards set forthin paragraph (c] of this section.whenever chronic or catastrophicprecipitation events cause the waterlevel in the pond to rise into the surgecapacity. Process waste water must betreated and discharged whenever thewater level equals or exceeds the mid-point of the surge capacity.

Cc) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in process waste waterpursuant to the limitations of paragraph(b) of this section shall not exceed thevalues listed in the following table:

Ef"t - A-eNe ot daly

any I drf cMnsmea..e dayssW It exceed

T55 150 50PHl Wtne re .0 b 7.

The total suspended solid limitationset forth in this paragraph shall bewaived for process waste water from acalcium sulfate storage pile runofffacility, operated separately or incombination with a water recirculationsystem, which is chemically treated andthen clarified or settled to meet theother pollutant limitations setforthinthis paragrapl.

(d) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in contaminated non-processwaste water shall not exceed the valueslisted in the following table:

Federal Register / Vol. 44,

50744 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 169 I Wednesday, August 29, 1979 I Rules and Regulations

(Milligrams per liter)

Effluent characloristleo Effluent limitations

pH ........... Within the range 6.0 to 9.6.

5. Section 422.63 of the SodiumPhosphate Subcategory is amended asfollows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Metric units, kg/kkg of product:

English units, bI/1,000 lb of product.


Average of dailyEffluent Maximum for -values for 30

characteristics any I day consecutive daysshall not exceed

Total Phosphorus(asP)......... 0.56 0.28

Fluoride (as F).... 0.21 0.11

1 6. A new § 422.67 for the SodiumPhosphate Subcategory is added asfollows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which inay be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant control-technology:


Average of dailyEffluent Maximum for values for 30

characteristics any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed

(Metric units kg/kkg of finished productEnglish units, lb/1,000 lb of product)

0.35 0.18pH .......... Within the range 110 to 9.5.

PART 424-FERROALLOYMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 421 for theFerroalloy Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

1. Section 424.13 of the Open ElectricFurnaces with Wet AIr Pollution ControlDevices Subcategory is amended asfollows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after appffcation 6f the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:



ch racteristics any I day consecutive daysshall not exceed

Metric units kg/Mwh

Chromium total- - .0008 .0004Chromium VlI. .00008 .00004Manganese total-_ .008 .0039-

English units lb/Mwh

Chromium total-_ • .0017 .0009Chromium VI__. . .0002 .0001Manganese total.. .017 .0086

2. A new § 424.17 for the OpenElectric Furnaces with Wet Air PollutionControl Devices Subcategory is addedas follows:





characteristics any I day consecutive daysshall not exceed

Metric wilts kg/Mwh

0.024 0.012Tm____Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

English units Fo/Mwh

0.052 0.020

W'Mthl Vv range 6.0 to 9.0.

3. Section 424.23 of the CoveredElectric Furnaces and Other SmeltingOperations with Wet Air PollutionControl Devices Subcategory Isamended as follows:





characteristics any 1 day consecutivo daysshall not exceed

Metric units kg/Mwh

Chromium total_.... 100 .0005Chromi.um VI....... . .0001 .00005Manganese total. .011 ,005Cyanide total ..... . 0005 .0003Phenols ........ . .0004 .0002

English units lb/Mwh

Chromium total.-. , .002 .0012Chromium Vl.... . .0002 .00OtManganese total... . .023 ,012Cyanide total..... . .001 .0000Phonol......... . .0009 .0005

-Provided, however, That fornonelectric furnace smelting processes,the units of effluent limitations set forthin this section shall be read as "kg/kkgof product" rather than "kg/Mwh," andthe limitations (except for pH) shall be3.3 times those listed in the table in thissection (or, for English units, "lb/ton ofproduct" rather than "lb/Mwh," and thelimitations (except for pH) shall be threetimes those listed in the table).

4. A new § 424.27 for the CoveredElectric Furnaces and Other SmeltingOperations with Wet Air PollutionControl Devices Subcategory is addedas follows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the best

50744 ,Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 5b745

conventional pollutant controltechnology:

Effluent -n-tations

Effluent , Average of duicharacteritics Maxmum for values for 30


Metric uits kg/Mwh

TSS 0.032 0.016pH. WLhn the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Engr;sh units lblM.wh

TSS_ 0.071 0.035pH .Vftn the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Provided, however, That fornonelectric furnace smelting processes,the units of effluent limitations set forthin this section shall be read as "kg/kkgof product" rather than "kglMwh," andthe limitations (except for pH) shall be3.3 times those listed in the table in thisseciton (or, for English units, "lb/ton ofproduct" rather than "lb/Mwh," and thelimitations (except for pH) shall be threetimes those listed in the table).

5. Section 424.33 of the SlagProcessing Subcategory is amended asfollows:


The following limitations establish thequanitity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent -iitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristics Maxnum for values for 30


Metric ufts kg/lkg processed

chromium total- .0054 .0027Manganese total .054 .027

Engish units b/ton of raw material

Chromium total- .011 .0054Manganese total . .108 054

6. A new § 424.37 for the SlagProcessing Subcategory is added asfollows:



Effluent i~

Effluent Akerao of d.. f-,arctist;s ,,,,,ra m for vaxles for 23

a1 Iday cc c-m %va d a ymhal ot eed-

Mct: -L3 , tI

TSS_ _ 0271 0.135pH. W l-n t,w r-a e 6.0 to 9.0.

Enrgh tWs Fl2Mah

TSS . 0542 0.271pH ,hJin the n-0e .0 to 90.

7. Section 424.43 of the CoveredCalcium Carbide Furnaces with Wet AirPollution Control Devices Subcategoryis amended as follows:



E.E-.ent 2ratcns=

EC'uent for Aerae of da3ycharactestcs Msx1lnmf vakus for 3a

arl I day CXse:.V ds

(P.'Ctrc wits) kg/li; of proA~bd

Toa cyaride. 0.056 I .,OM

(Enf~stl uits) Wb/ICO It) of prc-dt

Tota Cyat ,de.. 00,356 0=5

8. A new § 424.57 for the OtherCalcium Carbide Furnaces Subcategoryis added as follows:

§ 424.57 Effluent limitations gufdelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality ofpollutants or

pollutant properties, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.

9. Section 424.63 of the ElectrolyticManganese Products Subcategory isamended as follows:


(a) The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which maybe discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart producing electrolyticmanganese after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent racns

E~f~-~ ~t A.673 of daly~rva UUMf-taunu for V3:Lea for 30any1 dTy crectve dayrs

Saa Wt exceed -

We=t ta-W kIicAk3 Of prc1uet

6.778 3.383

(r4;sh wxitq) Ib/IC0 lb ct pcuct

0.678 0.39

(b) The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart producing electrolyticmanganese dioxide after application ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable:

Efftuetna!rcns

Efthent MaxurMna for vs'..es fcc 3odra-Wists aI I day cce.-tve days

sitar? not exzeed.-

(Vltlc unts) kglkkg of proax~t

Marv"rs-, 0.176 0.0881.762 .881

[(3ngfsil urits) lblicco lb of prcduct

16-r " 0.178 0.088Amr 1.762 .M81

10. Section 424.73 of the ElectrolyticChromium Subcategory is amended asfollows:





Average of dailyEffluent Madmum for 'values for30

characteristics any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

iMetric units) kg/kkg of product

Manganese. 0.530 0.265Chromduin..-.;. .053- .027Ammonla-N 5.2.... .97 2.649

(English units) Jb/1000 Jbof product

Manganese _........ 0.530 0.265Chromkm-ln . .053 .027Ammonla-N .. 5.297 -2.649

11. The new sectionslisted below areadded as follows:

§- Effluent limitations guidelines.representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutantcontroltechnology.


pH...." ............. Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Subcategory Sectiondesignation

Covered calcium carbide furnaces with wet airpollutlon control devices... .. 424.47

Electrolytic manganese products.. 424.67Electrolytic chromium .............. .... 424.77

PART 426-GLASS MANUFACTURINGPOINT SOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 426 for the'Glass Manufacturing Point Source.Category is amended as follows:

1.-'The sections listed below are addedas follows:

§-; Effluent limitation s guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.



(40 CFR)

Insuationlfbergtass .... 426.17Sheet glass . . 426.27

liled glass manufacturing 426.37

§426.43 [Reserved]2.(a) Section 426.43 of the Plate Glass

Manufacturing Subcategory isredesignated as § 426.47 and the originalsection number reserved for future use.

(b) The title and first -paragraph of thesection redesignated above is amendedto read as follows:

§ 426.47 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pol~utant controltechnology.

The following limitatfons establish thequantity or quality of polutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.

3. The regulations liste~below arewithdrawn and the section numbersreserved for future use.

Subcategory Sectiondesignation

Automotive glass tempening.426.63Glass container manufacturing ..;_ 426.83Glass tubing (Danner) manufacturing....... 426.103

4. The xegulations listed below areadded as follows:

§- Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional, pollutant controltechnology.

The'following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after applicption of the best

conventional pollutant controltechnology.

Effluent characteristic Effluent limitation

pH - .Within the range 0.0 to 9.0.

SecdonSubcategory designalon (4(

CFR)

Real glass manufactfaxj_... ..... . 420.57Automotive glass emperng.420.07Automotive glass laminaing .................... 420.77Glass container manufacturng................. - 420.07Glass tubing (Danner) manufacturing......... 420.107Television picture ube ................. 420.117Envelope manufacturingIncandescent lamp . 420.ltrEnvelope manufacturing hand pressed and

blown glass manufacturing . .... 420.137

5. Section 426.53 for the Float GlassManufacturing subcategory is amendedas follows:

§ 426.53 Effluent limltatlons guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

Effluent imitalions


any I day consecutivo daysshall not exccod-

Metric units (g/ldg of product)

Phosphorus ........ 0.05 0.05

Engrish units (lb/ton of prOduct)

Phosphorus-...... 0.0001 0.0001

6. Section 426.73 for the Automotivetdlass Laminbting subcategory isamended as follows:


Effluent limitatlons

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristics Maximum for values lot 30


Metr c units (g/,Jkg of product)

Phosphorus......... .30 .10

English units (ib/ton of product)

Phosphorus .......... .06 .06

7. Section 426.113 of the TelevisionPicture Tube Envelope ManufacturingSubcategory is amended as follows:



The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled bkr thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable. These limitations areapplicable to the abrasive polishing andacid polishing waste water streams.

Effluent Ernitaons

Effluend Average of dalycharacterscs Maah-vlmi for values for 30

any I1 day consec&e dayssham not exceed-

(Me . u-ets) glkkg of furnace pul

Fluode_ 120.0 60.0Lead - 0.9 0.45

(Eng-sh ufts) lb/1000 Rb of furnace pul

Fluode- 0.12 0.06Lea4 0.0009 0.00045

8. Section 426.123 of the IncandescentLamp Envelope ManufacturingSubcategory is amended as follows:

§426.123 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable lechnology economicallyachievable:

(a) Any manufacturing plant whichfrosts incandescent lamp envelopesshall meet the following limitations withregard to the finishing operations.

Effluent lunS

Effluent Aveage of dalicharacteo'st #s M.annn for values for 30

nyI day conaecett.e a ssh33: rmt exceed -

(Mec urts) g/kkg of pmoduct frosted

Fluoride 104.0 52.0Arnnra - 240.0 120.0

(En sfi tuits) [b/1000 lb of procuctfrosted

Ffuoide _ 0.104 0.052AMnoa 0.24 0.12

9. Section 426.133 of the Hand Pressedand Blown Glass ManufacturingSubcategory is amended as follows:

§ 426.133 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economIcallyachievable.


(a) Any plant which melts rawmaterials, produces hand pressed orblown leaded glassware, dischargesgreater than 50 gallons per day ofprocess waste water, and employshydrofluoric acid finishing techniquesshall meet the following limitations.

Efln ent s raw

Effluent Avw32se of dalmwacterisl,= proucsn for -lea e f 50

ay 1 day cSaeo dpdypro rot eceed-

La -02 0.1Fmide 2.M0 13.0

(b) Any plant which melts rawmaterials, produces non-leaded handpressed or blown glassware, dischargesgreater than 50 gallons per day ofprocess waste water, and employshydrofluoric acid finishing technquesshall meet the following limitations.

§ 427.93 ~Effluent tio s ieie

epresentng the cd dau tunt-styor PAuari for vunts rcr

ay I day care dys"oinl -r e-

mr31I

Fhindo2M0 13.0

PART 427-ASBESTOSMANUFAdCtJRING POINTSOURCECATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 427 for theAsbestos Manufacturing Point SourceCategory is amended as follows:

1. Section 427.93 of the SolventRecovery Subcategory is amended toread as follows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions of

this subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable.

Efffued~ lknat.o

Ef wert Merae of dal,&Wlaef::S Mx-nn.n fbr vaLes for 30

B-r I daj CCW.uec-ua dayssaIl not exceed-

(W -=uriz) k31lkg of fxished asbealuPrcdU-3

Coo 0.20 0.15

fM~s.sfs Urs) lbr.CCO lb of fmishtd

coo 0.0 0.15

2. A new § 427.97 is added to theSolvent Recovery Subcategory as readsbelow.



MAceru-e cf dailyL!.xm!zn fee values fcr 30

-11l dxy ccrsecutve dayssJ'.3 ret escaed-

(.~n= wa4!3) k3&k3 of f~isted asbestcs

T. 0.1a O89P4H - tn tt, ro-e 6.0 t 9..

(EsGzh mt~l) lbl.CCO 1b of frish&dastes p-'

30.15 0,9, ft mtW .0 to 9.D.

PART 432-MEAT PRODUCTS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

40 CFR Subchapter N Part 432 for theMeat Products Points Source Category isamended as follows:


Oeztcn

(4a CFM

5pSL-r. lu, .u3e . 43213G-V91 _qx5J -ff4, 42223L_ P Pa.kn:t.-ea 42233Iah Frocesaaj Paz -,tzL- 4M243

50747



§- Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresentating the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

(a) The following limitations establishthe quantity or-quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection and attributable to on-siteslaughter or subsequent meat, meatproduct or byproduct processing ofcarcasses of animals slaughtered on-site, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions of.this subpart after application of the bestconventional pollutant controltechnology.


Fecal coliform pH_ Maximum at any time 400 rapr/100ml. Wdhin the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

Subcrtegory Sectiondesignation

Simple Slaughterhouse ...... 432.17Complx Slaughterhouses_ .432.27Low Processing Pacdinghouso - 432.37High Processing Packinghouse-.... 432.47

§ 432.53 [Reserved]3. (a) Section 432.53 of the Small

Processor Subcategory is redesignatedas Section 432.57 and the originalsection number reserved for future use.

(b) The title and first paragraph of thesection redesignated above is amendedto read as follows:

§-432.57 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainableby the application ofthe best conVentional pollutant controltechnology.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the best-conventional pollutant controltechnology.

4. Section 432.63 of the Meat CutterSubcategory is amended as follows:

§ 432.63 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appllcaffon ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality ofpollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the best

available technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent imitations


any 1 day consecutive daysshel not exceed

Mi!igrams perliter--effluent

Ammonia 8.0 mg/I 4.0

5. Section 432.73 of the Sausage andLuncheon Meats Processor Subcategoryis amended as follows:

§ 432.73 'Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions -ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Efluert linitations


any I day consecutive daysshall not exceed

Milligrams per liter--effluent

Ammonia - 0 mgi 4.0

6. Section 432.83 of the Ham ProcessorSubcategory is amended as follows:


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievablef

Effluent Eitations

Effluent .Average of dailycharacteristics Maximum for vaes lorO

any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed

Milligrams per fiter--effluent

Am0ona. - S.0 mg/J 4.0

7. Section 432.93 of the Canned MeatsProcessor Subcategory is amended asfollows: -


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which m'y be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent inmilations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristics Maximum for values fot 30

any I day Consecutive daysshall not exceed

M flgrams per liter-elfluont

Ammonia _ 8.0 mg/l 4.0

8. Section 432.103 of the RendererSubcategory is amended as follows:


(a) Subject to the provisions ofparagraph (b) of this section, thefollowing limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollitant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:


Effluent Average of dailycharactoristics Maximum for values foa 30

any I day consecutivo daysshall not exceed

(Metric uits) lIg/kgg of raw nrmlotll

Ammonia....... 0.14 0.07

English units lb/1.000 lb of row material

Ammonia ......... 0.14 0.07

9. A new § 432.107 for the RendererSubcategory is added as follows:

§,432.107 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

(a) Subject to the provisions ofparagraph (b) of this section, thefollowing limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions of

Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 50749

this subpart after application of the bestconventional technology pollutantcontrol technology:

Effluent limitatons

Effluent Average of daF.charactenstics Maxmum for values for 30

any 1 day comsecutive daisshall not exceed

(Metric unts) kglkkg of fimsh-ed product

BOD- 0.18 0.09TSS 0.22 0.1101 & grease-..- 0.10 0.05pH Witin the range 6.0 to 9.0Fecal colorms. Maximum at any time 400 irpn/100 nit.

(English urs) 1b/,1.000 b of ,rishedproduc

BOD5 0.18 0.09TSS . 0.22 0.11Oil & grease-.--. - 0.10 0.05pH . Whin the range 6.0 to 9.0Fecal cof.-forms Maxium at any time 400 mpn/l00 mL

(b) The limitations given in paragraph(a) of this section for BOD5 and TSS arederived for a renderer which does nocattle hide curing as part of the plantactivities. If a renderer does conducthide curing, the following empiricalformulas should be used to derive anadditive adjustment to the effluentlimitations for BOD5 and TSS.

BOD5Ad'ustment (kglfkg 3,(n of hds)RM=

kg of raw materal

7.9 x(number of ffides)(lb1.000 lb RM)=

bs of raw matefa

TSS Adjustment (kglkkg 6.2 x (number of ides)RM)=

kg of raw material

13.6 x (number of hdes)(lb/1.000 lb RM=

lbs of raw material




Effluent characteristic Effluent iratons

Fecal co:-foim ..... Maximum at any time 400mpn/100 ml.

pH WVihn the range of 6.0 to 9.0

Subcategory and section designation

Meat Cutter, 432.67.Sausage and Lucheon Meats Processor,

432.77.Ham Processor, 432.87.Canned Meats Processor, 43.97.

Appendix A-Documents Used in theAnalysis

The data for each of the industry categorieswere taken from the documents listed below:

1. Dairy ProductsDairy Products Processing, EPA 440/1-74-

021-a.

2 Grain MillsGrain Processing, EPA 44011/74-028-a.Animal Feed, Breakfast Cereal and Wheat

Starch. EPA 440/1-741039-a.Cora Wet Milling, EPA 440/1-78/028-b,

Supplement.

3. Fruits and VegetablesApple. Citrus and Potato Products, EPA 440/

1-74-027-a.Economic Analysis of the Fruits and

Vegetables Category (Phase I1.EPA 230/1-75-030, Supplement, April 1970.

4. SeafoodFish Meal, Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam,

Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring, andAbalone, EPA 440/1-75/041-o,

Catfish, Crab, Shrimp and Tuna, EPA-440/1-74-020-a.

5. Sugar ProcessingBeet Sugar Processing, EPA 440/1-74-002-b.Cane Sugar Processing, EPA 440/1-74-002-c.

6. Cement MaonufacturingCement Manufacturing, EPA 440/1-74-003-a.

Z FeedlotsFeedlots, EPA 440/1-74/o-a.

8. Phosphate ManufacturingOther Non-Fertilizer Phosphate Chemicals,

EPA 440/1-75/043-a.

9. FerroalloysSmelting and Slag Processing, EPA 440/1-74/

008-a.Calcium Carbide. EPA 440/1-75038.Electrolytic Ferroalloys, EPA 440/1-75/038-a.

10. Glass ManufacturingPressed and Blovm Glass. EPA 440/1-7s-034-

a.Flat Glass, EPA 440/1-74/00-c.Insulation Fiberglass, EPA 440/1-74-001-b.

2. Meat ProductsRed Meat Processing, EPA 440/1-74-102-a.Processor, EPA 440/1-74/031.Independent Rendering, EPA 440/1-77/031-e,

Supplement.

Appendix B-The Cost of Pollutant RemovalBy Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Background. In order to develop an effluentlimitation which meets BCT requirements,

Congress requires that the cost and level ofreduction aT conventional pollutants byindustrial dischargers be compared with thecost and level otreduction to remove thesame-type of pollutants by publicly ownedtreatment w-orks {POrws). The POTWcomparisolaIgurehas been calculated byevaluating the change n costs and removalsbetween-secondary treatment (3o mg/I BODand 30 mg/I TSS) and advanced secondarytreatment (10mlg/1BOD and10 mg/I TSS).The difference in cost is dividedby thedifference in pounds ot conventional,pollutants removed, resulting in an estimateo~fthe "dollar perpound" ofpollutantremoved.

The follWing details thespecificcalculation of this POITW costtfgu:e.Thisinvolves four basic steps:-ulrst the averagesize POTW is determined: second, the totalannual costs for secondary and advancedsecondary treatment are estimated; third, thepollutant removal of the systems iscalculated; fourth, the additional costs aredivided by the additional pounds ofpollutants removed.

All the costs have been indexed to thirdquarter 1976 dollars to make themcomparable to the industry costs which are inSeptember 1976 dollars. The specific indicesused are presented In the discussion belv.The POTW cost figure can he updated tocurrent year dollars by use of these indices.

Average sized POTW. The POTWcost figure is based on the average flowsize POTW for the Nation. This averagesize Is calculated by dividing the totalnational daily flow of sewage by thenumber of POTWs in the country. Thereare 25,205 mgd of sewage discharged by14.592 POTWs which results in anaverage size POTV of 2 mgd.?

Total annual POTcosts. TheAgency based its estimates df annualP01W costs on information from twodocuments: The Construction CostDocumentand the 0 &M CostDocument" both issued-by EPA's Officeof Water Program Operations. Thesedocuments provide the most up-to-dateInform ation regarding the costs ofconstructing and operating POTWs.

"1970 Survey oftlecdj, Conveyance andTreatment of Municipal Wastewater, Summaries ofTechnical Data*, EPA 43019-79-w2, February 1979,at 9 and 13.

2"Construction Costs for Municipal WastewaterT'eatmcnt PL.nts: 1973-1977," EPA 43019-77-O13,January 197# (herei'afler cited as "constructionCast Documcnt".

3"AnalYsts of Orerations and Maintenance Cosifor MunIcipal Wastewater Treatment Sysems."EPA 430/9-77-015. .ay 1978 (hereirafter cited as'0 & M Cost Dtlaumenti.

50750 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 I Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

The POTW costs used in estimatingthe cost of pollutant removal are thetotal annual costs of upgrading asecondary treatment system toadvanced secondary treatment (AST).This is done by estimating the totalannual costs for a new advancedsecondary treatment system- anddeducting the savings that are expectedif secondary treatment is already inplace. Total annual costs include capitalcharges and operations andmaintenance expenses.

The annual Capital cost for a new-ASTsystem is equal to:

capital cost of AST xprice deflator

cap tal recovery factor

BILLNG CODE 6560-01-M

Federal Register / VoL 44. No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Ri.des and Regulations

Tnis -is specifically calculated as follows.

(1) capital c6st of AST 4 = (3.5 x 106)(Q,9 1), where Q is flow in mgd.

= (3.5 x 106) (2.91)

= $6.61 million

(2) capital recovery factor

(3) price deflator 6 = LCATLCAT

=12914

=.902

5 = 9..427, based on a 30year amortization at a10 percent i-nterest rate.

index, third quarter 1976index, 'first quarter 1978

(4) annual capital cost of AST = capital costs of AST x price deflator.capita] recovery factor

= $6.61 million x .902

9.427

= $.633 million a year

The annual savings from having secondary treatment in-place are-eqUial to:

capital savings of in-place secondarycapital recovery factor

x price deflator

Construction Cost Document. Supra note 2, Figure 7.1, curve 2.

5 Management-Accounting, Robert Anthony and James Reece, June 1975,

Appendix Tables, Table B (hereinafter cited as "Management-Accounting").

6 "Construction Cost Index uarterly Recap," Office of Water ProgramOperations, EPA, first quarter 1976 et seq (hereinafter cited .as"Construction Cost Index")

50751


This is specifically calculated as follows.

(1) capitaT savings ofin-place secondary7= (2.145 x 106 )(Q' 8 9 ), where Q is flow in mgd

/

: (2.145 x l06)(2.89).

: $3.98 million

(2) capital recovery factor 8 = 9.427, based on a 30 yearammortization at a 10 percentinterest rate.

(3) price deflator 9 = SCCT index, third quarter 1976SCCT index, first quarter 1978

= 119132

=.902

(4) annual capital savings. of in-placp secondary ='capital savings of in-place secondary x price deflator

capital recovery factor-

= $3:98 million x .902

9.427

= $.381 million a year.

The 0&M costs for an-AST are equal to: 0&M cost for AST x price deflator.


(1) 0&M cost 10 = (6.85 x l04)(QI'44), where Q is flow in mgd

: (6.85xi04)(21.44)


Construction Cost Document. Supra note 2, Figure 7.1, curve B.

8 Management Accounting, Supra note 5, Appendix Tables, Table B.

9 Construction Cost Index, Supra note 6.

10 0&M Cost Document, Supra note 3, Figure E. 2-4.

Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29. 1979 / Rules and Regulations

(2) price deflator = O&M index third quarter 1976O&M index, first quarter 1978

= 206230

= .896

(3) O&M for an AST = O&M cost x price deflator

= $.186 million a year x .896

= .167 million a year

The O&M costs for secondary treatment are equal to:

O&M cost for secondary treatment x price deflator.


(1) O&M cost 12 = (8.25 x 104)(Q' 96), where Q is flow in mgd.

= (8.25 x 104)(2.96)


(2) price deflator 13 O&M index, third quarter 1976.O&M index, first quarter 1978

= 206230

=.896

(3) O&M.for secondary treatment = O&M cost x price deflator

= $.160 million a year x .896


"O&M Cost Index Qyarterly Recap," Office of Water Program Operations,

EPA, first quarter 1976 et seq (hereinafter cited as "O&14 Cost Index").

12 O&M Cost Document, Supra note 3, Figure E. 2-3.

13 O&M Cost Index, Supra note 11.

50753

50754 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169- [ Wednesday, August 29, IF.79. / Rules and Regulations

The incremental total annual coast of upgradi,ng in-place- secondarytreatment to AST is equal to:

(annual capital cost of new AST + O&M for AST),-

(annual capital savings of having in-place secondary treatment+ O&M for secondary treatment).

This is specifically calculated as follows, usi.ng the results. ofthe previous calculations.

Incremental total ='($.633 million a year + $.l1-67 million a year)-annual cost ($.381 million; a year + $-.143 million a year)

=.($.800 million a year)-($.524 million a year)

S$. 276, million. a. year

Pollutant Removal by POTWs.- The other half of calculating!.the coLst

per pound of pollutant removed requires the determination of theI

number of pounds of conventional pollutants removed by advanced secondary-

treatment beyond secondary treatment. The pounds of pollutants removed

equal the flow of the POW times. the change in concentrationis of the

pollutants as they pass through the system. For the calculations

presented here the influent concentration is 210 mg/i for BOD and 230 mg/l

for TSS. 14 For a 2rmgd POTW that treats BOD to 30 mg/l and TSS to 30 mg/l

the pounds of BOD and TSS removal equal:

= flow x change in concentration

= (2 million gallon-s), x. ((210, + 230) - (30 + 30))mgday I. liter

= (2 million gallons) x (380) m9day liter

= (2'million gallons) x (380 mg) x (365 days) x (3.785 1) x (1 Ib)day liter year ga' on 454",000, mg

2.3I million pounds of BOD and TSS rem6ved per year.

14 "Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Appendix ff, Pont SourceControl Alternatives," EPA Laboratories, Cincinnati, Ohio, at H-14..,


For an advanced secondary treatment plant that treats to 10 ng/l

-BOD and 10 mg/l TSS the removal is:

= (2 million gallons) x (210 + 230) - (10 + 10)) mgday liter

= (2 million gallons) x (424 g x (365 days) x (3.785 1) x 0 Ib)day 1iter year galion 454,000mg

= 2.55 million pounds a year

The incremental removal equals (2.55 million pounds a year) - (2.31

million pounds a year) = .24 million pounds a year.

The effluent characteristics of 30 mg/l BOD and 30 mg/l TSS for

secondary treatment were selected, because this is the legal requirement

for POTWs as established by EPA. EFfluent characteristics of 10

mg'l BOD and 10 mg/l TSS for advancd secondary treatment are used since

they represent the best performance for advanced secondary treatment.

Using the'best recognized performance gives the POTWs credit for rmoving

the most pollutants and therefore tends to bias the per pound cost

of pollutant removal downward. This will result in the greatest possible

relief for industries. Appendix D discusses this in additional detail.

Both the 30 mg/l and the 10 mg/l performance levels correspond to the

maximum 30-day average performance of the POTW.

Incremental Cost of Removal. To calculate the cost of pollutant removal

of upgrading secondary treatment to advanced secondary treatment, the

additional costs must be divided by the additional removal of BOD and

TSS. Specifically the calculation is:

= incremental total annual costsincremental annual pollutant removal

= $.276 million a year.24 million pounds a year

= $1.15 a pound

This cost is indexed for various time periods below:

Cost of Pollutant Removal

First Second Third Fourth.Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter

1976 $1.10 $1.14 $1.15 $1.171977 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 S1.261978 $1.27 $1.30 $1.34 $1.41

SILWNG CODE 6560-01-C

50755

50756 Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, L979 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix C-Industrial Category Discussion.Sununary Table of Data

Following is a category-by-categorydiscussion of the analysis of each of theguidelines reviewed. Included in thediscussion are responses to the industryspecific comments made by representativesof each industry on the August 23, 1978proposal.

Following the discussion, TableCL.summarizes the data used in thedetermination of the reasonableness of theguidelines. The table lists the model plantsthat were considered for each subcategoryfor each industry in this review. Column 1.shows the size (small, medium, large) of fiermodel plants. Column 2 shows the cost perpound of conventional pollutant removed.

Dairy Products Processing (40 CFR Part 405)Pollutants controlleh In all subcategories

the only conventional pollutants controlledare BOD5. total suspended solids, and pHMNonconventional and toxic pollutants are notcontrolled.

Methodology: Costs and pollutant removalsfor model plants in each subcategory areconstructed from information contained iithe development document. This informationis based on production, waste water flow.waste loading and waste load reduction atthe BPT and BAT levels, and the costs toachieve those levels. In all of thesubcategories, there are different limitationsfor small and large plants. The limitations forthe small plants are less stringent than thosefor the large plants in the subcategory. Eacltset of'model plants is constructed so as totest the two sets of limitations in eachsubcategory. The small plant is assumed toreceive one-half the level of milk equivalentspecified in each subcategory regulation,while the large plant is assumed to receivetwice the level of milk equivalent specified ineach subcategory regulation. For example, ifthe size cutoff specified betw'een the differentregulations in a subcategory is 100,000pounds per day of milk equivalent, it isassumed that the small plant receives 50,000pounds per day and the large plant redeives200,000 pounds per day.

Results: Controls of pH are reasonablebecause the BAT guidelines do not requirestricter control than what is required underBPT, therefore the pH level at BCT is beingpromulgated equal to BPT control. For allsubcategories except the receiving stations,natural and processed cheese, dry milk andcondensed whey subcategories, controls ofBOD5 and TSS are reasonable because themodel plants exhibit lower costs than aPOTW to remove a pound of BOD5 and TSS.Therefore, those eight BAT regulations for thedairy products processing industry are being'withdrawn and identical BCT limitations arebeing promulgated.

In the receiving stations subcategory, thelarge model plant is found to haveunreasonable costs and the small model plantreasonable costs. Therefore, the Agency ispromulgating BCT lirmitations equal to BATfor small plants processing 150,000 pounds orless of milk equivalent per day and 'withdrawing the limitations for plants largerthan this size cutoff.

In the natural and processed cheesesubcaregory, the limitations for small plants

are reasonable and the limitations for largeplants unreasonable, Thereform. theAgencyis promulgating BCT limitations for smallplants processing 100,000 lbs/day or less ofmilk equivalent equal to BAT. The limitationsfor largeplants are being withdrawn.

In the dry mill'subcategory.the. small.plants are found unreasonable and the largeplants reasonable. Therefore, the Agency ispromulgating the BCT limitations equal to)BAT'or large planti processing more thair145,000 pounds per day oFrmilk equivalentand withdrawing the limitations for smallerplants.

In the condensed whey subcategory, thelimitatibns for lhrgaplants processing 30.000ipounds per day of fluid raw whey are foundunreasopable and are being,withdrawn.

For two subcategories, condensed milkCSubpartI and condensed whey (Subpart K),discharges ofbarometric condenser water forsmall plants are allowed for BPT,'while nodischarge of barometric condenser-waterisassumed for BAT. The Agency is reviewingcomments submittedon the costs forconversion fiom barometrilc condensers. TheBAT limitations for the small plants (lessthan 100;000 per-dayof ilequvalent for"

condensed milk, and less than 300,000 poundsper dhy of fluidirawwhey for condbnsedwhey) in these subcategories are beingwithdrawrr-andLBC.T limitations will:be,promulgated after further review.

Industry Comments:The Agency used'ddta'fronr old

development documents which may beoutcrtedanctinaccurate.

The Agency has reviewed the existing BATlimitations~for this, and all; other, secondaryindustries on the basis of the information inthe Agency record supporting thoselimitations- The gathering ofnew'data woufd;have unduly delayedihe completion of thereview and was not contemplated by theCongress.

Th&Dairy industry representatives,.withonly one exception, did not provide any newdata. The data provided by one.spokesmanwas plant specific-and not sufficient torepresent the industry or the subcategoryaffected.

The Agency should consider the effects ofother government regulations on the costs ththe industry of achieving the effluentguidelines. "

'1e-linitatrons are evaliated&basedoninformation in the existing record. The effectsof other government regulations on the.pollutant load or costs. oFanindlstry weretaken into account as part:ofthe originalregulatory development and contained in thatrecord. No new consideration of those effectsis warranted.

TheAgency should include the. costs oftreating barometric-condenser wlter in itsevaluation.of the limitations.

As mentionedlabov.e;,this.factor is being.evaluated in the condenseil milk andcondensed whey, subcategories.

The BATlimitations are not,technolbgically achievable.

This review islimited to determining thecost reasonableness of existing regulations. Itis not intended toreopen issuesWof technologywhich were properly addressedl at the. timeBAT was promulgated.

Grain Mills (40 CFR Part 406)Pollutants Controlled- In, all subcategories

tested, the only conventional pollutantscontrolled arm BOD5, TSS, and pH. Non-conventional and toxic pollutants aro notcontrolled.

Methodology: Data for alL sizes of modelplants used are taken from the developmentdocuments for the industry. The data arebased! on productloni waste water flow,waste roading andwaste load reduction atthe BPT and BAT levels of control and thecosts to achieve those levels of control, Inthose instances were morer than one modelplant has been developed to represent thesubcategory, the cost rest Is applied to allmodel plants.

Results: Controlsof pH are reasonaiblabecause the BAT guidelines do not requirestricter control than required.under BPT.Consequently, the pH regulations for allsubcategories are being promulgated equal tothe pH controlat HPT:

Four of the subcategories (normal wheatflourmilling,,normal rice milling, animal feed,and hot cereal) are subject to a BPT and BATregulation of zero. discharge and therefore donotrequire any further analysis. UICT will'callfor a zero discharge limitation for lheso foursubcategores.BAT isbeing kept inforcewbecause the zero discharge limitation appliesto, all pollutants, not only conventionalpollutants.

Of the six remaining subcategories in thiscategory, only one-{bulgurwheat flourmilling) is determined to be unreasonable.The. cost per pound of BOD5 andT9Sremoved exceeds the POTW costs. The B3ATcontrol. o[BOD5 and TSS, for this.subcategoryis being withdrawn.

The remainingfive subcategories havereasonable'BAT limitations forconventibnullpollutants. Therefore, the Agency Ispromulgating the:BCT effluent gufdelineslimitations for the remaining fivesubcategories. (com-wet millingi corn, drymilling, parbolled'rice processing, ready-to-eat ceral. and wheat starch and gluton).equalto the existingBAT'efffuent limitatlons.guidelines for conventional pollutants,

rndbstly-Comments:The Agency uses cost figures which are

inaccurate'and understated.'Data submitted by Industry spokesmen

showed total costs to be significantly higherthan those used by EPA. An analysis of thesesubmitted costs shows, however, that severalof the treatment component costsincluded Inthe.figures are those of technologies requiredunder BPT. The data submitted Is notsufficient for the Agency to change Itsdetermination of reasonableness since onlycosts above those required for BPT areappropriate to. consider.

Canned and Preserved Fruits and VegetablesProcessing (40 CFR Part 407)

Pollutants Controlled: In all subcategories,BOD5, TSS and pH are controlled. Toxic andnonconventional pollutants are not controlledir any of the subcategories.

Methodology: Data, for model plants In allof the subcategories are taken from thedevelopment document and economicainalysis for the industry. This data includosinformation On production, waste water flow,

Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 . Rules and Regulations 50757

pollutant load concentration. pollutant loadreduction at the BPT. and BAT levels ofcontrol, and costs to achieve those levels ofcontrol.

Results: (1) Citrus products, anddehydrated potato products: The limitation ofpH is reasonable because it is the same atboth BP and BAT. Therefore. the BCT pHlimitation is being promulgated equal to BPT.The BAT guidelines for two of thesesubcategories forTSS and BOD5, aredetermined to be-reasonable and areredesignated as BCT.

(2) Apple juice: Two model plants aretested in this subcategory. The large modelplant (500 tons per day) is reasonable. Thesmall plant (100 tons per day).isunreasonable. Therefore, the Agency hasdetermined that the B3AT limitations forplants processing less than 500 tons per dayof raw material will be withdrawn and thatBCT limitations for plants processing 500 tonsper day or more ofraw material willbepromulgated equal to BAT.

(3) Apple products: Two modelplants aretested in this subcategory. The BAT efluentguideline for the large plant 100 tons perday) is reasonable, while the BAT effluentguideline for the small plant [10 tons per day)is unreasonable. The Agency is promulgatingBCT equal to BAT for all plants that have aproduction of at least 100 tons per day of rawmaterial processed. Additionally, the Agencyis withdrawingthe BAT limitation for plantsprocessing less than 100 tons per day of rawmaterial,

(4) Canned and preserved fruits, cannedand preserved vegetables, canned andmiscellaneous specialties: In a separateaction, pursuant to an agreement between theAgency and the National Food ProcessorsAssociation. the BAT limitations for thesesubcategories have been withdrawn. 44 FR36033 (June 20,1979). BCT limitations will bepromulgated after further review.

{5) Frozen potato products: The Agency isreviewing data submitted during thecomment period. The BAT limitations arewithdrawn and BCT limitations will bepromulgated aftar further-review.

EPA used outdated and inaccurate data indetermining the reasonableness of BATforthe potato processing industry.

Potato processing industry spokesmensubmitted data on current operatingconditions. As discussed above EPA isreviewing the data submitted.

Sugar Processing 40 CFR Part 409)Pollutants Controlled- In all subcategories.

BOD, TSS and pH are controlled. In the beetprocessing subcategory, fecal coliformis alsocontrolled. No nonconventional or toxicpollutants are controlled. .

Methodology: Data for model plants in allof the subcategories are taken from thedevelopment documents published pursuantto the promulgation of BAT guidelines. Thedata includes information on production,waste water flow, pollutant loadconcentrations, pollutant load reduction atthe BPT and BAT levels of control, and thecosts to achieve those levels of control.

Results: Three subcategories wereconsidered in this review: beet sugarprocessing, crystalline cane sugar refining,

and liquid cane sugar refining. The Hilo-Hamakua Coast of the Island of Hawaii rawcane sugar processing subcategory, theLouisiana raw cane sugar processingsubcategory. find the Puerto Rican raw canesugar processing subcategory do not haveany BAT regulations in effecL The Floridaand Texas raw cane sugar processingsubcategory and the Hawaiian raw canesugar processing subcategory have a BPTeffluent limitation of zero discharge.Consequently, no test of reasonableness Isrequired.

For the three subcategories originallytested. controls of pH and fecal coliform arereasonable because the BAT guidelines donot require any additional control beyondBPT..

The Agency Is not promulgating Itsdetermination of reasonableness in the beetsugar and cane sugar refining subcategories.In the proposed rulemaking, the limitationsfor all subcategories were found reasonable.In the cane sugar refining subcategories, theAgency is currently reviewing the BATlimitations pursuant to a court agreementwith the industry. See California r'HawaiianSugar Co. v. EPA. 553 F. 2d 20. 281 n.3. (2Cir. 1977). The BCT limitations will beestablished as part of this review. In theinterim, the BAT limitations for conventionalpollutants are withdrawn. In the beet sugarsubcategory. the industry submitted datasufficient to warrant a reevaluation of theAgency's determination of reasonableness.

Industry Comments:The Agency foiled to use current data an

costs andpollutantemorals to determinethe reasonableness of the limitations.

Representatives of the beet sugar industryhave provided industrywide data on costsand pollutant loadings. The Agency is stillevaluating this data and will promulgate itsdetermination of reasonableness when theevaluation Is complete.

Canned and Preserved Seafoods (40 CFR Part408)

The Agency, In a separate action. Isreviewing the BAT limitations for theseafoods industry. When that review Iscomplete, the BCT limitations for thisindustry will be promulgated. Until that time.the Agency is withdrawing all BATlimitations in the seafood industry.

Cement Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 411)Pollutants Controllef" In all subcategories

the conventional pollutants controlled aretotal suspended solids and pH. Thenonleaching and leaching subcategories alsohave a temperature limitation.

Methodology. The data for the subcategorymodel plant are taken from the developmentdocument. The data includes information onproduction, waste water flow, pollutant loadsand concentrations, pollutant load reductionat the BPT and BAT levels, and the costs toachieve those treatment levels.

Results: The leaching subcategory is theonly subcategory which is tested and Is foundto have unreasonable limitations for TSS atthe BAT level The Agency is withdrawingthe BAT control of TSS for this subcategory,but is retaining the control for pH,redesignating that control as BCT.

The subcategories ofnonleaching andmaterials storage piles runoff were not testedbecause both are under equal limitations atBPr and BAT. The Agency is promulgatingthe BCT limitations equal to the BATlimitations.

Industzy Comments.Industry disputed _A EP statement tMat tae

BCTlimitations for the Nonleacing andMaterial Runoff Subcategories were to be setat zero dLSe_

In AppendixE of its proposed regulation.EPA stated that the BPT and BAT limitationswere zero discharge. This vas an error,discharge Is allowed in these subcategories.However, Br and BAT limitations areIdentical, and, in the proposed regulationItself. BCT was set at the correct level. Thisrulemaking promulgates those limitations asBCT.

Feedlots (40 CFR Part 412)Pollutants Controled: The pollutants BOD5

and fecal coliform are controlled under HPrIn the ducks subcategory. The BAT limitationIs no discharge of process wastewater. In theother subcategory (all subcategories exceptducks) the BPT and BAT limitations are zerodischarge. There are no nonconventional ortoxic pollutant controls.

Alethlologr. The only subcategory whichhas stricter limitations at BAT than BPr isthe ducks subcategory. However, theInformation on the costs and technologiesnecessary to achieve BAT is not available.Because of this, the BAT limitation for thissubcategory is being withdrawn untilInformation becomes available to properlyevaluate the limitation.

Results:Subcategory A (all subcategoriesexcept ducks) is excluded from the analysisbecause both BPT and BAT limitations arezero discharge of process wastewater. Thislimitation will also be used as the BCTregulation.

The BAT limitations for the duckssubcategory are being withdrawn. The BC£limitations for this subcategory will bepromulgated after further information isdeveloped to evaluate the'subcategory.

Industry Ca meatsrThe Agency improperlfound thedacks

subcftegory to be reasonable %ithoutperforLmig the required cost test.

The Agency recognizes this inconsistencyand is withdrawing those limitations.

Fedilizer Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 41)The phosphate subcategory has zero

discharge limitations at both BPT and BAT.The effluent resulting from storm runoff alsomust be treated to certain levels ofconcentration. These concentration limits areequal at BPT and BAT. Therefore, the BCrlimitation is being promulgated equal to BAT.

The ammoniun sulfate production andmixed and blend fertilizer productionsubcategories have zero discharge limitationsat BPT and BAT. This same limitation isbeing promulgated for BCT.

The urea and ammonium nitratesubcategories are being dealt with in aseparate rulemaking.

The nitric acid subcategry has nolimitations on conventional pollutants.

Industry Comments.'Nocomments werereceived concerning this industry.

50758 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and RegulationsMWWMMN0r

Phosphate Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 422)Pollutants Controlled: Total suspended

solids, total phosphorus, and pH are thecontrolled convdntional pollutants in thispoint source category. Fluoride, anonconventional pollutant, Is also dontrolled.

Methodology:. Model plant data for thesodium phosphate subcategory (the onlysubcategory tested) is taken from thedevelopment document. The data includesinformation in production, waste water flow,pollutant loading, pollutant load reduction atthe BPT and BAT levels, and the costsassociated with achieving those levels ofcontrol.,

Results: The sodium phosphbatessubcategory is found to have reasonable BAT,limitations for conventional pollutants.Although the incremental costs to meet BATare not specified, the costs are estimated tobe less than 5% of the costs to comply withBPT. Based on this estimate, the cost perpound of TSS removed, if all costs wereapplied to the removal of TSS, is less than thecost of removal for POTWs. Therefore theBCT control of TSS and pH is being equatedto BAT control.

The defluorinated phosphate rock anddefluorinated phosphoric acid subcategorieshave BAT limitations which are equal to theirBPT limitation. The Agency is thereforepromulgating the BCT limitations equal to theBAT limitations for conventional pollutants.No other subcategories have regulationswhich are in effect.

Industry Comments: No comments werereceived concerning this industry.

Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 424)Pollutants Controlled: In all subcategories

tested, the controlled conventional pollutantsare total suspended solids and pH. Toxicpollutants, including chromium, manganese,cyanide and phenols are also contrblled inmost subcategories.

Methodology: The data for a model plantfor each subcategory are from thedevelopment do'cuments. All data on modelplant production, waste water flow, andpollutant loading, and pollutant control levelsare taken from those developmentdocuments.

Results: Of the six subcategories analyzedas to the reasonableness of their respectiveconventional pollutant BAT limitations, threeare reasonable and three unreasonable. Thethree reasonable subcategories are: SubpartA, open electric furnaces and other smeltingoperations with wet air pollution controldevices; Subpart B, covered electric furnaces'and other smelting operations with wet airpollution control devices; and Subpart C, slagprocessing. The BCT limitations for thesesubcategories are set equal to BAT. The. threeunreasonable subcategories are: Subpart D,covered calcium carbide furnaces with wetair pollution control devices; Subpart F,electrolytic manganese products; and SubpartG, electrolytic chromium. The BATlimitations for the unreasonablesubcategories are therefore withdrawn andBCT limitations will be set at a later date.

Subpart E, other calcium carbide furnaces,has a BPT and BAT limitation of zerodischarge and is, therefore, not included inthe analysis. The BOT limitation is being

promulgated as zero discharge for thissubcategory.

Industry Comments:The industrytdoes not believe TSS to be an

indicator of toxic pollutants. If it isdesignated such, theif costs attributable tothe Resource Conservation and Recovery Actshould also be considered in the BCT costtest

The designation of TSS as an indicator oftoxic pollutants in this industry is only apossibility. If the TSS limitation in thisindustry is called a toxic indicator, the TSSparameter would also be controlled underBAT.

The Agency used model plants which varyconsiderably in size from those found in thedevelopment documenL

Model plants in the industry weredeveloped to find a flow size for the costcomparison to a POTW in the proposedmethodology. The revised methodologyeliminates the need to develop flow sizes formodel plants. The development documentindicates a constant cost per megawatt-hour(Mwhr) of power use. The effluent limitationsare set on a pounds per Mwhr basis. The costper pound is calculated by dividing the costper Mwhr by the pounds of removal perMwhr. The result is the same as that stated inthe proposed rules.

Glass Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 426)Pollutants Controlled: Total suspended

solids and pH are controlled in allsubcategories. Three subcategories haveincreased controls for oil. Additionally, threesubcategories have controls of otherpollutants such as fluoride and lead.

Methodology:,Data for a model plant foreach subcategory tested are from the industrydevelopment documents. The data includesinformation on production, waste water flow,pollutant concentrations, and treatment coststo achieve the BPT and'BAT limitations, as"well as the pollutant load reductions for eachlevel of control. I X

Results: The BPT and BAT limitation forprocess water in the insulation fiberglasssubcategory is zero discharge. Specificlimitations are established at BPT on thedischarge of conventional pollutants and-phenols from wet air pollution controldevices. The BAT limitation is zero dischargefrom all sources. Since the zero dischargelimitation controls phenols, a toxic pollutant,no BCT analysis is required. A BT limitationof zero discharge from all sources is beingpromulgated. "

The sheet glass and rolled glasssubcategories are not analyzed because theBPT limitation is zero discharge. BT is alsobeing promulgated as zero discharge for thesesubcategories.

The plate glass subcategory is the onlysubcategory of those tested to be foundreasonable. The Agency is promulgating theBCT control of-conventional pollutants equalto the BAT control of conventional pollutantsin'this suhcategory.

All other subcategories (float glassmanufacturing, automotive glass tempering.automotive glass laminating, glass containermanufacturing, television picture tubeenvelope manufacturing, incandescent lampenvelope manufacturing and hand pressed

and blown glass manufacturing) are found tobe unreasonable and the BAT control ofconventional pollutants is being withdrawn.In the hand pressed and blown glasssubcategory, no cost information Is availablefor the analysis. However, the technologyand pollutant loads are similar to the rest ofthe unreasonable subcategories. On thisbasis, it is assumed that costs would besimilar, and unreasonable.

Industry Comments: No comments werereceived concerning specific industry Issues.

Meat Products (40 CFR Part 432)Pollutants Controlled: In all subcategories

tested, the conventional pollutants controlledare TSS, BOD5, oil and grease and pH.Ammonia, a nonconventional pollutant, Isalso controlled in all subcategories. However,the ammonia limitation has been remandedin the simple slaughterhouse, complexslaughterhouse, low processing packinghouseand high processing packinghousesubcategories.

Methodology: The data for model plants foreach subcategory are from the developmentdocuments for the regulations. The dataincludes information on production, wastewater flow, pollutant concentrations,pollutant reductions at the BOT and BATlevels of control, and the costs to achievethose levels of control for each model plant.

Results: For subparts A through D, portionsof the BAT limitations not applying toconventional pollutants have been remandedby the courts. In one of these subcategories,the TSS limitations were also remanded. Inresponse to this removal, these limitationsare currently being reviewed. In the interim,the Agency Is withdrawing the remainingBAT limitations for BOD5 and TSS. Thelimitations for fecal coliform and pH in thesesubcategories are being retained becausecontrols of these pollutants are the same atBPT and BAT.

In the case of four additional meat Industrysubcategories, subparts E through I, theAgency is conducting a review of thelimitations beyond BPT, so BCT Is not beingpromulgated at this time, The final limitationswill be promulgated at a later date,

In the small processor subcategory, thereare minimal costs associated with the BATlimitations. The costs of such additionalremoval are reasonable and the Agency Ispromulgating BCT equal to BAT.

The limitations in the renderer subcategoryare reasonable. The waste water flow allowsthe existing end-of-pipe treatment system toremove ammonia and conventionalpollutants. This technology was chosen as themost cost-effective means of controllingammonia, a nonconventional pollutant. Thecosts are totally attributable to ammoniacontrol in this case.

Industry Comments:A substantialportion of the costs of

treatment are attributable to conventionalpollutant control. Not all costs should beallocated to ammonia control,

The Agency is reviewing its determinationof reasonableness for the meat cutter,sausage and luncheon meats, ham processorand canned meats subcategorles based onthis comment. These subcategory regulationsinrlitip p,,pnoI,,-, -,AA __..J .. t -

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 29, i979 I Rules and Regulations 50759

treatment beyond BPT. part of which couldbe attributable to conventional pollutantcontrol. In the renderersubcategory there isno added end-of-pipe reatment beyond BPTpart of which could be listed above. For thereasons stated above, the Agencyispromulgating the BCTTegulations for therenderer subcategory equal to BAT.

Other Industries-There are industrial categories and

subcategories, other than those listedpreviously, that are not tested forreasonableness. These categories wereexcluded from the analysis because they donot have any regulations ineffect or haveonly BPT regulations in effect.

The industrial categories which have noregulations in effect are: watersupply,miscellaneous foods and beverages;transportation; fish hatcheries and farms:steam supply; day, gypsum, refractory, andceramic production; concrete products; andshore receptors and bulk terminals.

Three additionalindustrial categories havein effect only the BPT limita tions. These areoffshore oil and gas extraction, hosfitals.andmineral mining and processing. The mineralmininj and processing category also hassome subcategories which have molimitations in effect.

The Asbestos industrial category has aBAT limitation of zero discharge in sevensubcategories. These subcategories are notanalyzed because the zero discharge imit isfor the control of toxic pollutants and is notsubject to review.

-Table C1.--Swnaiyoft Data

1 2

Model 1, ]*Ft Plant

Dairy1. Reevs stations___. s 058

* 1.552. Fluid produce -a. .12

.763. Cultured prduoe - s 29

.994. Butter .26

! 595Cottageaearcheese . 9 35

1 1.066 Natural. processed cheese s .1

l 1.217.FlUd n9 Ir crean... 3 3

8. Ice cean *ae e .31desse_"Ls I .. 2

9. Cmdensed rnill..... dchdrab pending 1.09Ur-rs, dy.

10.Dryrnlk , , s 1.463I 1.05

11. Codensed% __ Wilhdra pendirg 130

12 Drywhey M .9I .9o

Gra vas13. Comwet miri g. a .13

m .101 .09

14. Corn dry milng.- Is .25

15. Bulgsr wnea-.._-.. t 22.0016. Parboied ie. .. I 1U217. Read y4-eal ...ra... $ .76

m .57S.45

18. Wheat starch ed glten_ t .20Canned and preserved

fruits and vegetables

Table C1.--SumrwyofData--Cootriiued

1 2Industry and subcalgcry

Model Mol.

19.pplluls$ 1.16

20. Apple Pro&Jcts ........ M.93.74

.13

22. Frozen potato - Whd"aM per&g furtherSIL.

23. DWbdr~a Poo -....... Z .90l .13

24. Canned and prerr-d Wthf n s n aeparale acfon.frots.25. Canne and prrved Vo

vegetables.26. C dnne and o.

Canned and pree',edsealoods27. Farm raised calfish - Warxan pe-,ft Artksr

s!Jdf.28.ComeStind bkue cra..- Do.29. Mechanized blue crb- 00.30. Nowernota Alaskn crab. Do.31. RerecteAla.lsm oab Do.32. Nonremole Alaskn whoWl DC.

crab.33. Remote NkAJ1&l Wh Do.aab.34. Ournese; and tanner DCo.

crab.35. Nonremote Altar. DO.

36. Remote Aabama stib.. UL37. Northm s., .----..- Dox31. Sotno bradd o.

39. Breaded lstrMp. O.40. Tuna___ ___ Do.41. Fish t*l w/i aowkew Do.

42. West coast butchered 00.

43. West coast mechanzedl Do.Salmon.

44.lsc kaCon y 4enlk Do.bono= WLb.

45. n Alaskan Mediarize D Do.bottomrt h.

46. tmndsh dd . ._. Do.47. Med-aized clanm - Do.48. Pac4 handshucked 0o.

oyster.49. Atlant.c and Gulf hand. Do.

shucked oyster.50. Steamed and canned Do.

oyster.51. SardinaeDo.52. Nori-Alascan eadop..... DO.53. Non-Alaskanm fe gl. Do.54. Abalone Processeg - o.

ISugar procesftn55. Beet vjgar Not Prornulgwd gerkg

56. crstarmicans gew Do.57. UkuM cae - .- Do.

Cement manufactuir58. Leac-ing 8 4.40

Feedk*59. Ducks_ Dae not ;aevle, wm Ln'

Ferroaloys60. Open elecc fiunea 4 4

wet61. Coveed electric and t .53

62. Stag RrPsing.. .0263. Covered cacium carb k e 1.8

64. Electroy manae . L t4565. ectroic chrornkn t 1

Glass msrarWctudr,266. Ins. Flergmass t67. ___te__ t .33ca. t 14.4269. Auto terrpekrng, . t 2.

Tab C.-,& y of Da?-Co e

Moaland $aActe

70. A~ft Unm- It 5.571. LCc.nert 372- Tbdi t 2.7873. TV pctx t I a574. ncariwiua Lam t 25

75. Hand press arJ Lbown.. Cxo-A tu:rzc

78. CejatP Ft Not at oE BC'revierbecause pcAftS ar

77. Cerct .heat- DO.7. PaK sta.ch -er. . Da.79. P*aer (61%w' ,4 tNod Do

81 ____ F~eDo.

82. Wet! st Cc ac ... .. Do.Mrg pr=it~c

83.S~eSb vus.....RagLI,2rs renvedbysIe

susdeade4-

85. Low Processed D(.

8. Ktl procesed Do.

87. S all Processed - NO sts as3ocieasdwmefrl SAT.

88. M-~at 0;!Wr Wlnxlawn pw-.deng istms

83. saurag and kxkc=.. Do.92. Ham prccessirg Do.91 Ca1nned .lr. - Do.

93. S edi t*ro*4%es M costs aswos4 wms

n =S,'m& Wso model pwA&mUseau a model plmtt=Lvg. 9" iadd P~ts

$I.15o tgeser. pe rfI-Typicai ad* r.<W ants.

*Tte nodal plat SrU. is comed a P0Wcozct$1.15 to dewmrAn realor.bletea.

'BAT bdd~prlvmoacgastoa*~. coft anid rsaaa not avitable.

Appendix D-Responses to Comments

1. Comment-Several comments statethat the Act requires the application oftwo tests in determining an appropriateBCT. Two supplemental tests aresuggested by commenters. One involvessome measure of water quality benefits,while the other calls for an examinationof the cost-effectiveness of pollutantremoval within an industry subcategory.

Response-Commenters base theirassertion that the Act requires the use oftwo tests in establishing BCT on thespecificlanguage of Section 304*b)(4](B).This subsection requires theAdministrator to consider-

The reasonableness of the lationshipbetween the costs of attaining a reduction ineffluentand the effluent reduction benefitsderived. and the comparison of the cost andlevel of reduction of such pollutants from thedischarge from publicly owned treatmentworks to the cost andlevel ofreductiwi ofsuch pollutants froma class or category ofIndustrial sources" .(emphasisadded].

50760 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No., 169 / Wednesday, August 29, 1979 / Rules and Regulations

Although many commenters assertthat this section requires the use of two

,tests, most simply poiilt to theconjunctive nature of the clausecontained in that section. Few suggestalternative tests.

In developing the proposed BCTmethodology, EPA carefully examinedthe language of the statute and itslegislative history. The Agency has fullyand exhaustively looked at a number ofalternative approaches and believes thatthe methodology detailed here fullysatisfies Congressional intent.

The range of other tests which havebeen considered independently or as asupplement to the promulgafedapproach are detailed in the proposal(see 44 Fed. Reg. 37606-07). In fact, EPAdid apply a second test, the"concentration test", in the propose4rulemaking, but for reasons explainedelsewhere, this test is not being includedin the final methodology.,

Several commenters argue that, inaddition to any POTW comparison, thelocal water quality benefits of applyingBCT must be examined. They rely-onthat portion of section 304(b)(4)(B)which requires that BCT includeconsideration of "effluent reductionbenefitts." Consideration of 'effluentreduction benefits" is already requiredin setting BPT limitations, and EPA hasconsistently interpreted this phrase asrequiring an evaluation of the totalincremental amount of pollutantsremoved by application of the effluentlimitations. Courts have agreed that thephrase does not require an assessmentof the benefits to local water quality.See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Castle,590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978); AmericanPetroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 FW 1023(10th Cir. 1976). As in the case of BPTand BAT, BCT limitations are nationallyapplicable technology-based limitationsfor which it is impossible to identifylocalized water quality benefits.However, EPA does consider "effluentreduction benefits" when the totalquantity of pollutants removed iscalculated and a cost per pounddetermined..

Several commenters argue that a"knee-of-the-curve"' assessment bemade which would identify the point atwhich the rate of increasing costsdraslically.'begins-to eiceed Pollutant'removal rates. EPA agrees that the"knee-of-the-curve" analysis couldconceptually be a valid consideration indetermining BCT, and indeed one factorin assessing POTW costs was such ananalysis. Nonetheless, the Agency foundthis concept impossible to apply indetermining industry cost ratios. First,any determination of "knee-of-the-curve" requires large a mounts of dataabout the performance of various levelsof treatment technology. Such data is

not now'available and, in industrieswith limited technology options, cannotbe developed. More fundamentally, thisassessment-involves the presumptionthat.there is, in fact, some point wherecosts dramatically begin rise in relationto effluent reduction benefits. Invirtually no case can such a point beidentified for industrial sources. First,limited data do not yield sufficientinformation to plot any accurate graphof "cost to benefits". Second, in somecases, costs do not rise exponentially;certain later stages of treatment may infact be more cost-effective than thenecessary preliminary steps. In theabsence of any "knee-of-the-curve"benchmark, there is no point at whichcosts can be said to be unreasonable inrelation to benefits.

Some commenters suggest that a"knee-of-the-curve" be determinedbased on the ratio of the average cost ofachieving BPT to the cost to progressfrom BPT to BAT. No suggestion ismade, however, hs to what ratio shouldbe considered unreasonable. Again, thisapproach provides no benchmark fordetermining a point at which BCT costsare reasonable. Congress, however, •established the POTW cost comparisonwhich provides just such a benchnark.

2. Comment-Several commentersstate that EPA should use BPT ap astarting point in evaluating thereasonableness of existinglimitations.They point to statements in thelegislative history of the 1977Amendments indicating that BPT was tobe the starting point in determining BCTlimitations. This statement is supportedby citations of the legislative historywhich indicate that certain Members ofCongress believed that BPT wasgenerally an adequate level of control,and that BAT was probablyunreasonably stringent.

EPA agrees that the purpose ofestablishing BCT is to insure thatrequirements beyond BPT are notunreasonable. EPA will allow only BPTto remain in-effect where further -

controls are appropriate. The POTWcomparison establishes the maximumpoint at which costs are reasonable inrelation to benefits. The Agency'usesBPT as the base for determining thereasonableness of incremental levels ofcontrol.

3. Comment-EPA's proposed"concentration test" has no statutorybasis and, moreover, fails to account forvariation in influent pollutantconcentrations and penalizes industrieswhich practice water conservation.

Response-In order to provide forgreater flexibility in conducting theindustry BCT reviews, EPA proposedthat a concentration test be performedwhere industries that had treatmentcosts higher than POTW costs. In this

test, the effluent concentration of theindustry subcategory was compared tothe effluent of a POTW at secondarytreatment, and, if the industrial effluentshowed significantly higherconcentrations of pollutants, BAT forthe industry was determined to still bereasonable.

EPA agrees with many of thecriticisms of the concentration test.Although the legislative historyindicates that, in some cases, industriesfailing the POTW test may still havereasonable limitations, the use of thisconcentration test present problems, Itmay actually be a disincentive to waterconservation, and it fails to account fordifferences in influent concentrations,Further, it may not be a good measure oftreatment efficiencies. The test istherefore being dropped.

4. Comment-Several commentersassert that EPA, in esthblishing its costcomparison methodology, fails toconsider additional factors specified byCongress.

Response-Section 304(b)(4)(B)provides that in establishing BCT theAdministrator must consider a range offactors in addition to the costreasonableness assessment. Suchfactors include, among others, the age ofequipment, production processes andenergy requirements. These factors are,however, identical to those which mustbe considered in establishing BAT, andhave already been evaluated for thoseBAT limitations which have been foundto be reasonable. When new BCTlimitations are promulgated, thesefactors will be assessed whenevaluating candidate technologies.

5. Comment-EPA should use a singlenumber POTW cost figure forcomparison with industry costs.

Response-In its proposedmethodology, EPA compared the costper pound of removal for industries withthose of POTWs of comparable flow.Costs for these POTWs ranged from$0.36 to $1.72 per pound. This approachresulted, in some cases, in industrieswith low costs for removal being foundto have unreasonable limitations, whilelimitations on industries with highcostswere found to be reasonable. To remedy -this problem, EPA now will use a singlePOTW cost figure for comparison withall industries. As discussed in AppendixB, this single number is based on costsfor removal at a 2 mgd POTW. This sizefacility was selected based on a flowweighted average of existing POTWs.

6. Comment-Several commentersargue that EPA's use of the incrementfrom BPT to BAT in its cost calculationunderestimates the marginal costs ofremoval at BCT. These costs areunderestimated, it is argued, because


costs are likely to rise at a much steeperrate as treatment levels reach BAT.

Response-EPA believes that use ofthe BPT to BAT increment appropriatelyreflects the costs per pound to achieveincreased levels of control. For purposesof this review of the secondaryindustries no other increment couldhave been used. For most of theseindustries cost data was only availablefor the BPT and BAT technologies, and,since Congress did not intend that EPAundertake extensive new analyses, thiswas the only increment available forcalculating BCT costs.

For any industry which BCT isestablished in the future, including theprimary industries, EPA will evaluatethe increment from BPT to the candidateBCT technology. This increment mostaccurately reflects the costs to upgradeexisting facilities from BPT to BCT. Onlysuch increased levels of control whichpass the cost reasonablenessassessment may be established as BCT.

The increment of BPT to BAT issuitable for several reasons. First, thisincrement does approximate themarginal costs of removal at the BCTcandidate level. While use of narrowerincrements based on intermediate levelsof technology might yield betterapproximations, none would accuratelyreflect marginal costs and thus, eventhese increments would be subject tothe same criticism. Second, it is difficultto select the intermediate technologiesto calculate costs and removals, sinceselection of intermediate technologies is,of necessity, arbitrary. If anintermediate increment were used,alternative increments could in all casesbe identified which would affect the costper pound calculation. Lastly amethodology which employed thesuggested approach could not feasiblybe employed by permit writers to setBCT limitations on a case-by-case basis.I Use of the increment from BPT to thecandidate technology avoids theseproblems. Although various candidates

- might be evaluated, calculations of thecost per pound for each is certain sincethey are based on a fixed interval fromBPT to the candidate level.

7. Comment-Several commentersargue th'at EPA should calculate POTWcost per pound of removal based on theincrement from primary to secondarytreatment or from raw waste load tosecondary treatment.

Response-As discussed in thepreamble section, "Modifications to theProposal", EPA believes that forpurposes of the BCT comparison, theincrement from secondary to advancedsecondary most accurately reflects costsper pound of pollutant removal atPOTWs. This increment approximates

marginal costs at secondary treatment,represents a narrow, cost-effectiveincrement beyond secondary treatment,and parallels the increment used in theindustry calculation.

Commenters suggest that EPA shouldcalculate the POTW cost comparisonfigure to emphasize the initial cheapestpounds of pollutants removed byPOTWs. EPA believes that this isclearly contrary to Congress' intent inthis matter. Congress acknowledged thatcurrent BPT treatment requirements arereasonable, and that costs to achieveBPT were not to be included inindustrial calculations. Inclusion ofcosts to go from raw waste load orprimary treatment to secondarytreatment in calculating POTW costs,however, would be comparable tocalculation of BCT based on the costs toindustry to progress from no control toBCT. Nor do any such increments haveany conceptual value in identifying themarginal costs of treatment. Use of suchincrements biases the POTW figure andobviously leads to a very low POTWcost comparison figure.

8. Comment-Commenters argue thatthe POTW calculation is based ontreatment practices that are peculiar toPOTWs and not typical of industrialtreatment. They notice that industrygenerally removes a greater percentageof pollutants and that industriesgenerally have higher influentconcentrations.

Response-The POTW/industry costcomparison was established byCongress. It is not intended to comparetechnology practices; rather, the costs toPOTWs for treatment, regardless of thetype of treatment, serve as a benchmarkfor measuring the reasonableness ofcosts to industry.

9. Comment-Several commenters feelthat it is improper for EPA to includeCOD and oil and grease in the BCTanalysis because these parameters hadnot been officially determined to beconventional pollutants at the time ofthe BCT proposal last August.

Response-EPA has withdrawn itsproposal to designate COD as aconventional pollutant, and therefore itis not used in the HCT caculations. Oiland grease has, however, beendesignathd as a conventional pollutantand will continue to be included in theBCT methodology.

10. Comment-One commenter statesthat the addition of the pounds of TSSand BOD nright, in some cases, result inthe "double counting" of pollutantsremoved. Other commenters object tothe substitution of oil and grease orCOD for BOD.

Response-In developing itsmethodology, EPA was aware of the

difficulties of calculating total pounds ofconventional pollutants removed. Inmany cases treatment equipmentremoves more than one pollutant, and.In some cases, a pollutant can beproperly classed as more than one typeof pollutant. To minimize this problemEPA has divided into two classes thepollutants which may tend to be doublecounted. These classes are solids (TSS],and oxygen demanding substances(BOD and oil and grease). Only onepollutant from each class will beincluded in the calculation. Thus, if-bothboth BOD and oil and grease areremoved by an industry, only theparameter with the greater amount ofremoval will be used. This methodologyhelps ensure that an industry is notattributed artificially low cost per poundof removal because of the doublecounting of these pollutants.Additionally, any problem of doublecounting between classes is greatlyreduced by the fact that the samemethodology is employed in both thePOTW and industry cost per poundcalculations. Any decrease in cost perpound attributable to such doublecounting will occur on both sides of thecost comparison.

11. Comment-Several respondentsexpress concerns that the treatmentcosts they would bear at the BAT levelwould result in severe economichardships. They request that EPA givegreater attention in the BCT review toassessing the magnitude of possibleeconomic impacts and that the Agencyconsider these impacts when making theBCT determinations.

Response-The purpose of this reviewwas to determine whether existingregulations were "cost reasonable." EPAaddressed the question of overalleconomic impacts during the initialdevelopment of BAT regulations. Whenthese BAT limitations were established,the economic impacts were consideredalong with the other necessary factors.Regardless, no additional impacts willresult from these BOT limitations, andfor many industries some cost savingswill occur.

12. Comment-Some commentersstate that the methodology employed tocalculate conventional pollutantsremoved should be based on the long-term performance of a treatment systemrather than the maximum averageeffluent quality allowable over any 30day period. They argue that use of the 30day maximum allowable discharge inthe BT calculation inappropriatelybiases the costs of removal downward.

Response-EPA continues to believethat calculations of total pollutantremoval should be based on themaximum levels allowed for the average


of any 30 day period. These 30 daylimitations are contained in all effluentlimitations guidelines and are the7primary limitation relied on forenforcement -of the Act. Long termaverage limitations have been writtenfor only a very small number ofsubcategories, and data on such longterm compliance is not, in most cases,collected.

EPA recognizes that variability inpollutant concentrations can affect thecalculation of long term removal ratesbased on 30 day averages. Nonetheless,such variability exists with respect toPOTWs as well as industrial effluents,and use of the same time period tocalculate pollutant removals forindustries and the POTWs shouldminimize the problem.

13. Comment-New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS) shouldbe subject to the BCT costreasonableness assessment.

Response-EPA believes that BCTonly applies to existing sources and thatNSPS is not affected by BCT decisions.This is supported by both the languageand legislative history of section304(b)(4)(B). First. section 304(b)(4)(B) is,on its face, limited in application toexisting sources; section 306 containsthe requirements applicable to newsources. Further, Congress was quiteexplicit in stating that BCT wasdesigned to replace BAT for industrialsources. There is no indication in thelegislative history that Congress wasdissatisfied-with, or intended to modify,the NSPS applicable to new sources.Finally, new sources may, in permitssubsequent to their first, be subject toBCT. New sources receive NSPSlimitations only in their initial permit.Any subsequent, and more stringent,limitations on conventional pollutantswill be subject to the BCT costreasonableness analysis. Suchlimitations could not be imposed untilafter the expiration of the exemptionperiod specified in section 306(d).

14. Comment-Several c6mmentersnote that a variety of factors,particularly climate, can affect the costof compliance with effluent limitations.

Response-Although technology-based limitations are to be set on anational basis, EPA does considerwhether variation with respect tofactors such as climate affects theability of industrial dischargers toachieve such limitations. Thus, theeffects of climate and similar factorswere included in the original assessmentof BAT limitations.

15. Comment-Several respondentssuggest that EPA consider lessening the.stringency of pH requirements so as to,reduce treatment costs and improve

treatment efficiencies. These'respondents note that pH1 ranges slightlybelow 6 or above 9 have no significantwater'quality impact and, moreover, inother BAT regulations, MPA allows forpH in excess of 9.

Response-The purpose of thisrulemaking is to review existing BATregulations that are more stringent thanBPT. In all cases, the pH regulations forsecondary industries are the same atboth BPT and BAT. Therefore, there isno basis for changing the pH limitationsas a result of the BCT review. Thevalidity of the Agency's pH limitationswere subject to challenge when theoriginalBPT limitations werepromulgated. The Agency has receivedpetition for modification of certainpHlimitations. That petition is currentlyunder review.

16. Comment-The definition ofcontaminated nonprocess wastewaterimplicitly cond6nes poor maintenance,careless operation and/or lack ofpreventive maintenance.

Response-The definition ofnonprocess wastewater was developedas the Tesult of a court suit whichrequired EPA to define more precigelythe different types of wastewater. Thepurpose of the BCT review is to evaluate

-the "cost reasonableness" of regulationsas they exist, not to reassess anyexisting terminology or treatment. EPAwill not at this time reconsider thedefinition.

11. Comment-Commenters raise arange of technical issues regarding'EPA's use of the documents identified inthe April 2, 1979 Federal Register (40CFR 405 through 432). Such issuesinclude the validity of the underlyingdata base, inconsistencies inpresentation of data in two documentsrelied on by the Agency, the statisticaltechniques employed, and the validity ofthe results.

Response-EPA has evaluated each ofthese criticisms at length. Although "

detailed responses to each of thesecomments are not included here theAgency has carefully considered thesecomments and believes that it hasemployed a sound methodologicalapproach and that the results are valid.

18. Comment-EPA annualized POTWcapital costs at~a 10 percent interestrate, yet EPA has previously used a 6%percent rate for evaluating the costs ofnew POTWs. The former rate Tesults inPOTW costs being higher than isappropriate.

Response--EPA considers the 10percent interest rate to be proper indetermining total annual POTW costs.The 10 percent rate is citedin the Officeof Management and Budget Circular A-94 for use in Agency programs not

covered by the Water Resources Councilprinciples and standards. Although the6% percent rate has been used by theAgency to achieve the goal ofemphasizing capital intensive projectssuch as land treatment, this same noticestates that "use of the 10-percentdiscount rate would help produce amore economically efficient distributionof construction grant funds." 40 Fed,Reg. 44022,44032 (September 27, 1978).

19.-Comment-Several commentersassert that thq POTW data used by EPAwas both inaccurate and overstated,

Response-Since proposal, EPA hasimproved its POTW cost data. Afterproposal of the BCT methodology EPAidentified new data provided in twoEPA documents, "Construction Costs forMunicipal Wastewater TreatmentPlants: 1973-1977" and "Analysis ofOperations and Maintenance Costs forMunicipal Wastewater TreatmentSystems." Both of these documentsrepresent empirical and bid data onPOTW costs. EPA published a notice ofits intention to use this data and publiccomment was solicited 44 FR 19214(April 12,1979). No commenterrecommended more current or completereferences than these.

20. Comment-Many commenterscomplain that EPA used old, out-datedinformation on industries in performingits BCT evaluation.

Response-In performing the reviewof secondary industry BAT guidelines,the Agency restricted its gathering ofdata to the development documents andthe economic analyses documents whichwere published in support of thepromulgation of the BAT guidelines foreach industrial category. Congress,when it established BCT in the 1977Clean Water Act Amendments, requiredthe Agency to perform an immediate "90day" review of BAT guidelines forsecondary industries. Therefore,Congress seems to have intended thatEPA rely on existing data and notundertake extensive and timeconsuming new analyses of industries.

Obviously, EPA has not managed tocomplete this review in the short timeasked by Congress. This delay hasresulted from the complexity of theissues involved and review of theextensive comments received. Althoughthis rulemaking is late, any requirementto gather data on each of the manysubcategories evaluated here wouldrequire several additional years ofstudy, and this would be far more timeconsuming than the Agency believesCongress intended.

EPA has, however, reviewed all datasubmitted by industry. In several cases,where such data seriously question theaccuracy of the data used in this review,


the Agency has delayed promulgation ofBCT limitations to allow a morethorough investigation. Regardless, theAct provides that BCT will be subject toperiodic reexamination and review.

21. Comment-Some commentersdisagree with EPA's statement (made inthe August 23, 1978 proposed rules) thatExecutive Order 12044, "ImprovingGovernment Regulations," does notapply to the proposed action becausethe proceeding was pending at the timethe order was issued some also say thatregulatory analysis is required becausethis regulation will result in an annualeffect on the economy of $100 million ormore and because the regulations willresult in a major increase in costs and/or prices; some further comment that aneconomic impact statement must beprepared in accordance with ExecutiveOrder 11821 and 11949, if the proceedingwas pending when Executive Order12044 was issued.

Response-EPA continues to assertthat Executive Order 1.2044 does notapply to this action because the BCTrulemaking proceedings were pendingon March 23, 1978, the date ExecutiveOrder 12044 was issued.

However, even if the Executive Orderdid apply, the Agency sees no necessityfor performing a regulatory analysis inthis case. EPA's criteria for conductingregulatory analysis states that,regulatory analysis will be performedwhen the impacts of the regulationscause additional annual costs ofcompliance in excess of $100 million orproduction cost increases result in priceincreases of 5% or mote. 44 Fed. Reg.30988 (May 29,1979). However, thisaction decreases costs of compliancefrom those required by existingregulations. BCT requirements are in nocase more stringent than original BATregulations and, for most subcategories,existing regulations are beingwithdrawn. The Agency also does notbelieve that an economic impactstatement must be prepared inaccordance with Executive Orders 11821and 11949. The economic impacts of theregulations were examined when theoriginal BAT standards wereestablished, and no greater impacts willresult from this action. The sole purposeis to determine if the BAT standardsmeet the additional BCT test.

Appendix E-Public Comments.The following parties responded with

comments regarding the August 23,1978 BCTproposed rules: Alto Cooperative Creamery;American Crystal Sugar Company; AmericanFarm Bureau Federation; American Iron andSteel Institute; American Paper Institute;American Petroleum Institute; Anheuser-Busch. Inc.; Arnold and Porter, Inc.; AtlanticCorporation: Boise Cascade; California and

Hawaiian Sugar Company; Canners Leagueof California; CF Industries: Cleary. Gottlieb,Steen and Hamilton: Clinton Corn ProcessingCompany; Collier. Shannon, Rill, Edwardsand Scott; Consolidated Badger Cooperative;Council on Wage and Price Stability; CornRefiners Association, Inc.; CPC International:Dairy Industry Committee; Dean FoodsCompany Dow Chemical; East BayMunicipal Utility District; Ronald J. Eberhard;Eli Lilly and Company; The FerroalloysAssociation; Ford Motor Company Frito-Lay.Inc.; Galloway Company; General ElectricCompany; H. J. Heinz Company; Holly SugarCorporation; Tom Holmes; H. P. Hood. Inc.;Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation;Kraft. Inc.: Lake to Lake Dairy Cooperative;Land O'Lakes, Inc.; Mary Lewis; Lone StarIndustries, Inc.; Long Island Duck GrowersAssociation; Manufacturing ChemistsAssociation; Mead Corporation: MichiganSugar Company; Mobil Oil Corporation: KeithMontombe; National Fisheries Institute, Inc.:National Food Processors Association:National Milk Producers Federation: NationalRenderers Association, Inc.: National SteelCorporation; New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation; OffshoreOperators Committee; Olin Chemicals Group;Pacific-Seafood Processors Association: F. B.Pugsley Reynolds Aluminum; Scott PaperCompany; Shellfish Institute of NorthAmerica; Shell Oil Company; SnokistGrowers. State of Florida; State of Oregon;State of Washington; State of Wisconsin;Tenneco, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; TexasDepartment of Water Resources: U and 1.Inc.; Union Carbide Corporation; U.S.Brewer's Association, Inc.: U.S. Cane SugarRefiners Association; U.S. Department ofInterior, Warners Duck Farm; WellsEngineers, Inc.: Donald Williams; WisconsinDairies; Wisconsin Dairy ProductsAssociation, Inc.[FR Do=. 7 4W19 Fikd &-28-79;845 am)

BILWNG CODE 6560-01-M